cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same. 

Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.

The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.

I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.

The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.

It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.
What's an example of a movie review?

LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it.
Determine the sentiment:

Just saw the film tonight in a preview and it's a film for kids only. It does not improve or add to the original Disney film in any way. There is a corny Scottish pastiche style throughout, not helped by weak writing (where motives are lumped in by the spadeful) and acting that is uneven and often unengaging (despite what reads like a decent cast). I have no problem with the wee dog - although there is a certain "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" (see below) quality about his shots.

* For those that don't know, "Skippy" was an Australian kids' TV series from the 1960s where the kangaroo would be an essential part of all the stories. It is said that to get poor old Skippy to "act" they stuck an elastic band round his muzzle that he then tried to get off with his paws - sort of appearing to be communicating with the human actors!!! Bobby has a similar range and you just don't buy his series of heroic rescues at all.

Advice would be to take kids aged 8-12. Below that, they might be scared. Above that, if they or you love it, good luck to you, but this is strictly cardboard cut-out film-making for the undemanding. It's a missed opportunity since there is real pathos and cuteness in the story of Bobby and this film fails to deliver it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Not having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.

While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs (girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger children.

The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to give away any more of the plot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one the worst movie I've seen and certainly worst movie Nagesh Kuknoor has made. I can't believe person who has created movie like Teen Deewarein can create utter crap like this. 

Plot of the film itself is really faulty that Zeenat has to search Meera and get her clemency to help her husband avoid death penalty in Soudi Arabia. Common logic says if Zeenat cannot search Meera easily so won't the Soudi Government, so Zeenat can safely forge Meera's signature or thumb-print and produce it before the Soudis. Another silliest thing is Shankar has given incorrect address in his passport, so Indian government officials cannot get to the address but after sometime Meera gets Shankar's suitcase through Soudi government. Wow! Doesn't it make Soudis well networked in India more than Indians?

Nagya makes a slightly more than cameo in the movie with role of Chopra, who is eyeing Meera and seeks Meera's Father-in-law, Girish Karnaad(this guy is just wasted)'s help to get her as a keep. 

Nagya cannot speak Hindi and he has been assisted by other guys to translates the English dialogs he writes, in Hindi. This time, it seems that his aide was in serious intoxication, when writing dialogs like "Imaan ki Chalaang" (leap of honesty). Within minutes, to our worst nightmares, Meera not only takes this honest leap, she taps her feet to do "Imaan ka Naach" (dance of honesty).

One of the only bright spot movie has is its cinematography and really nice hues. But since Bollywood has learned the thing called Post-production, almost all the movies have vibrant colors and nicely blended backdrops, so no big deal.

Conclusion is that making a cheesy movie is not limited to Chopras or Johars or Barjatyas, Nagyas and all are ready to get affected.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a great Italian shark movie probably not a full action type of shark movie but it has a great story about a native American in the form of a killer shark that attacks a small beach community. the movie has actual scenes of real sharks and some not but how they made it is pretty good the cast are not that brilliant of acting in this shark film but it it shows better acting in some other Italian shark movies such as (e.g cruel jaws,last shark)they show some pretty bad acting but most Italian shark movies are good which means this votes best as the best Italian shark movie ever , some scenes in this movie show violence/gore which makes this film good that it shows it so i would say this is the best film for all shark-movie-fans.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.

Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.

Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.

Result: Dracula 3000.

For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.

Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to "reprogram" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.

Oh, why go on.
What's an example of a movie review?

A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors.

It has to be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not supposed to happen.

It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Caught this film on TCM in the early A.M. It was amazing.

Starting out slow but ominously.... Scott is a shady character who preys on women. In this case, two women who happen to be due an inheritance in Southern California.

The sets of the beach and neighborhoods of the 1940's are original and intriguing. The title may have been more creative, but the theme and nefarious shadows of human nature are intriguingly exposed, almost in a Hitchcockian version.

Scott reminded me of the character Uncle Charley in "Shadow of a Doubt", one of Hitch's reputed favorite films. The audience learns,we truly do not know what lurks in the dark side of the human mind.This film is a displaced gem and well-worth purchasing. 10/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I am 13 years old and I am writing this review in my mom's sign in. She will write her own review later. 

This is my all time favorite movie.It was filmed in England in 1944. I watched it so many times when I was little that I wore out the video tape. I love this movie and it changed my life! The beautiful landscapes. The mighty pie-bold thoroughbred horse. The plain little Irish village with the young girl who wanted to do what no other girl had ever done, compete in The Grand National Steeplechase in London with her most beloved horse, The Pirate. It all made me want to ride horses (which I have done now for 7 years)and learn everything I could about their breeds so I could also draw and paint them. It's a ground breaking movie about winning against all odds, overcoming your fears, believing in yourself, and reaching difficult goals by working very hard. Also, the horse race scene was one of the best ever made and I have seen many movies with horse races. I never get tired of watching this movie. Everything about it is perfect. Especially if you are a young girl and passionate about horses!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
if you watch this at home on DVD or Bluray! be sure you have great sound system. the musical score through this is what moves you through the movie. I have watched the movie several times and thought it was great but after just up-grading my home theater sound system, what a difference. I will be watching this movie many, many more times.

if you do not have a great sound system. find a friend who does and watch it there.

also watch the extra stories and behind the scenes extras that come with it (the BR or DVD.) the interview of Quimet in the 1960's talks about his scholarship fund...but for those times just boys got it. today I hope some of it goes to girls.......

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
People call a 976 "party line" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).

Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.

Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD

It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.

Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried. 

Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head. 

Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.

Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.

All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.
***SPOIERS*** Atlanta crime auctioneer with Burt Reynolds,Sgt. Sharky, and his tough and well oiled "Sharky's Machine" Let. Frisco, Charles Durning, and officers Papa & Arch, Brian Keith & Berney Casey, breaking up the Atlanta crime Syndicate who's on the verge of putting "Their Man" in the Geroria Governor's State House. 

Busted after messing up a major drug police sting operation, with the drug dealer and a number of innocent pedestrians shot and killed, Sgt. Sharky was transfered into vice. Busting hookers johns and perverts Sgt. Sharky finds a list of call girls in the wallet of a top Atlanta pimp and after bugging one of the call girls apartment it turns out that she's having Don Hotchkins, Earl Holliman, a candidate for governor as a regular costumer. 

As Sharky starts to investigate this strange arraignment he finds out that the good family man, married with five children, Hotchkins is also on the payroll of Vittorio "Victor" Gassman the mob "Godfather" of Atlanta.The high-price call-girl Dominoe, Rachel Ward,who's involved with Hotchkins is tired of being a hooker and want's to leave Victor's stable of call-girls and live with Hotchkins as his live-in mistress after he gets elected governor of Georgia, which is already a forgone conclusion, but their's only one slight hitch; will Victor let go of her. 

Tangling with the Gassman Syndicate the corrupt Atlanta police and city officials, as well as the local Chinese mob, Sgt. Sharky ends up losing most of his men, including two of his fingers, as he brings down the Gassman Mafia in a final shoot-out with the his Mobsters at the famous Atlanta Peachtree Plaza Hotel's. 

Statueques and beautiful Rachel Ward as Dominoe is thought to have been murdered by Gassman's drugged-out hit-man Billy Score,Henry Silva,who blew her face off with a shot gun but in reality it turned out that he really killed Dominoe's call-girl room-mate Tiffany, Aarika Wells, with Dominoe away in the country. 

Sharky, who was in love with Dominoe from afar, found out the truth about her being alive and to the surprise and shock of mob kingpin Victor Gassman is going to use her, by getting Dominoe to testify against him, to put Gassman and his mob away for good but the cunning and vicious Victor wasn't going to go willingly and let Sharky know it sooner then he thought. 

Blood spattering shootout at the Peachtree Plaza Hotel in the films final sequence with Shark'y Machine having it out with the almost indestructible junkie hit-man Billy Score. Shooting it out on the hotel stairway both Billy Score and Sharky's machine member Arch come face to face with Billy's drug induced invincibility clashing with Arch's Zen reality alerting philosophy in what can best be said to be a battle of two cultures: West and East.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders". Soon, they get suspended in order to "Round-up" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up! 

This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels "Ridin' Down the Trail", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall. 

** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts
I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's so fake! The plot seems like a generic adaptation of the average blaxploitation film. The common themes of blaxploitation like racism, oppression and fighting for the integrity of your community are outlined so simplistically/shallowly. And the jokes aren't even funny! Dolemite does these stand up monologue comedy routines that are really painful. All the people around him deliver this canned laughter. Even the soundtrack sounds like it's fakin' the funk. For far better comedy in a blaxploitation try "Coffy" & "Friday Foster" with Pam Grier. For a more realistic blax experience try "Black Heat".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.

I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.

I hope that he finds her.

Take a look and be entertained.

KirbyEF
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? "She runs the emotional gamut from A to B." Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.

This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Well, it wasn't a complete waste. Armand was as usual very good in the movie,,,the whole turks vs German thing was kind of strange because I remember seeing Bulgaria at the beginning of the movie...dint' bother to go back and check...the central theme is about the serial killings with the whole gang warfare loosely woven in. Never saw a movie where the characters looked Italian, supposed to be Turk, taking English(American accent and euphemisms) with German words. The climax was the most intriguing part and there are parts of it that still did not make sense to me. In any case, if you have nothing else better to do, you can watch this movie..
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..

The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.
Write a negative movie review.

I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.
Determine the sentiment:

I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.

Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of "twists" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.

The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a "serious" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1/2)

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
During the summer, the cue line for this attraction is really long, since it is a water ride. It's very well-themed, but a lot of the ride's artifacts seem to be out of order. Overall, the ride is not worth it if you have to wait for almost 2 hrs. in line. The drop at the end is exciting, but the whole ride itself could have been better. Creators for Indiana Jones could have prob. helped these Hollywood designers. Also, many times the ride breaks down and causes even longer waiting periods for others. It's also very unpleasing when they only have one raft departing dock open and not the two, like they are supposed to. During Halloween Horror Nights, you ride in the dark, and it's exciting if it's your first time, but if it's not, then don't bother waiting in a four-hour line.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".
Why remake the original "Assault"? To my mind "Assault" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on "main character I"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy/corruption background. The "remakers" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, "What ever happened to Pauly Shore?" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.

In "Son-In-Law," Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called "Crawl," and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.

Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.

The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under "biography" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.

"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom "Pauly" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm...."
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I must admit I wasn't expecting much on this movie. I was surprised I truly enjoyed it as much as I did. The script wasn't oscar material, but it wasn't horrible either. The acting was great by Mark Wahlberg. Jennifer Aniston had a great supporting role, and looked lovely as ever. What made this movie for me was the music. If you do not like 80's glam metal or hair bands, then you probably wont like this movie. Its all about being a rockstar. Some cliche's were present, but didn't bring down the movie at all. I would recommend it to anyone who likes rock and roll and remember to Stand up and Shout!!! 8 of 10 for great acting and awesome music.

Jason

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ("Blame It On Rio", "Sleuth", "Without A Clue", "Gambit", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") or truly bad comedies ("Noises Off", "Death Becomes Her", "Harry & Walter Go To NY"). This falls into the latter category.

TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.

I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say "if you're a Moron fan you'll love this" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.

If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.

The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In "Little Miss Sunshine" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have read a couple of reviews of this film, which has recently been released on DVD by Eclectic. Apparently, the opening titles are letterboxed, but the remainder (most) is full-screen. The first release, in 1982 by Planet Video, is completely letterboxed. Though it was a primitive release, it did get the compositions right. Later releases had sharper and better picture quality, but they were fullscreen as the DVD is. Any release of this film should be letterboxed, as it adds significantly to the visual experience of the old Planet tape.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)

Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

George Sanders playing the Saint for the penultimate time does a good job out of a good script - with the usual good RKO cast around. It's a non-Charteris story too, bristling with murders and good clean fun.

Thread 1: In New York, Police Inspector Fernack, Templar's friend is framed in a corruption scandal and disgraced - ST comes over from London to try to put things right. Nice and simple so far - but is there really more than $90,000 in the world? Thread 2: Another tale of a woman taking revenge on the people who murdered her brother, Wendy Barrie does well in bumping off some nasty men and having the Saint fall in love with her to boot. Including a baddie who was under their direct protection and in Fernack's cellar - there's a creepy shot of him (dead and staring) and them in a car when they're taking him back to where they'd got him. Paul Guilfoyle as Pearly Gates must have supposed to have been homosexual in this - witness the dressing gown at the beginning, and the later beguiling comment by ST that he was thinking of keeping him as a pet - and did too for "Palm Springs"! Fernack was played by Jonathan Hale as usual but this time with such a beaten deflated attitude that what he really needed was a good slapping from Templar to liven him up.

The Hays Office also made sure you got the picture right, all threads are tied up with no straggly bits. Well worth watching for all of us who like this kind of thing, but if Val Kilmer's version is your yardstick then don't bother.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The film starts well enough. It is a truly terrifying scene as a couple of fugitives on the run from the law tear apart an innocent family living in a secluded country cottage by killing the mother and father. The young daughter only manages to escape with the aid of a mysterious spectre, who kills the two aggressors while she covers in a downstairs cupboard. Then, we catch up with her 15 years later as a drug-addled student researching the supernatural, living with her promiscuous aunt and being looked after by a mysterious redhead. She has no real friends, was almost raped at a party and keeps having bizarre visions which no-one else can see. So yep, life is grand. Things get a lot more pleasant when she has a falling out with her mum's sister, who is later found dead in a bathtub under suspicious circumstances with 11 etched into her forehead. Hmm, I wonder who the police's main suspect will be? This is quickly followed by more deaths, all linked by their relation to our heroine having been on bad terms with them before their passing. Could she be the culprit, or perhaps the explanation could be something of a more ethereal nature? Clue: If you think the former, you've picked up the wrong movie from Blockbuster. Go back and get the correct one, short-sighted gimp.

As I said, I was all ready to fast-forward to the good parts, safe in the knowledge that I wasn't missing out on anything but a mediocre suspense potboiler. But the first ten minutes grabbed me, and I decided to give it a chance. I was quite pleasantly surprised: it certainly wasn't a masterpiece but the acting was good enough and the script kept throwing up intriguing situations of which I looked forward to finding the solution to. Alas, 45 minutes in, I realised my attention start to wander during a long sequence where the main character is walking round a library, doing nothing. We then get a cheap scare, followed by quarter of an hour of goddledegook about the paranormal between her and her new hunk of a boyfriend. Things only got worse from there, as the promising beginning is thrown out the window as we get one unconvincing plot twist after another, followed by an ending so anti-climatic it's like being promised the moon and ending up with a teeny weeny meteorite instead. Pathetic.

If it was bad all the way through, it would have been far easier to swallow. The fact that it starts at a canter and barely ends with a whimper is not just disappointing, it is heartbreaking. How can something which began so promisingly end up being so formulaic? I don't know, and I don't particularly care. I'll just give the writer and director a bit of advice for next time: Don't spend 5 weeks writing the first part of your screenplay, then 5 minutes finishing the rest. You tend to notice these things in the final product when you treat your project as sloppily as you have here... 3/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative