cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling "The Good Companions" and the classic "Evergreen" is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as "Millie - the non - stop variety girl" but there was more stop than variety.

Now I see it as a good little drama.

It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.

Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fiancée ( yes, that's right).

Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in "Miracle on 34th Street", plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.

Emlyn Williams - who wrote "Night Must Fall" was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in "David Copperfield" and "The Devil Doll" is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I think the best way for me to review this title is to split it into its pros and cons.

PROS: ~ they turn into wolves rather than plastic/cartoony monsters. ~ the chase of the wolves through the forest ~ "Cash Machine" by Hard-Fi being played

CONS: ~ some parts of the script makes you cringe (for example the terrible part where the woman escapes the 'games' of the "Fortunate Five" boys, and there's about half an hour of "Dear cousin" and a round robin of "Yes, see, we know Gabriel's law") ~ the diving transformation is ridiculous ~ the obvious and ridiculous ending ~ Aiden being told thousands of times to leave, and then goes "if you cared about me you would have left me" ~ the obvious characters ~ the unnecessary parcour ~ the completely unnecessary slashing of the arm by Aiden ~ cringey speeches by Gabriel

You see what I mean.

I adore werewolf films, and I tried watching this a few times to see if I'd like it better but it just made it worse. I think I'll just read the book and see how I get on.

Don't bother with this unless you have a 12 year old brother or sister into spooky things. Anyone over that age may suffer and want their hour and a half back.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Having just watched this with my mother (Who got it for Christmas) i was thrilled to find something different to the usual stuff i usually watch. All of the stories were detailed and you are able to feel strong emotion towards each character from the very beginning. Every storyline is followed through brilliantly, making you feel completely different things for every single character. The cast is amazing, my personal favourites being James Read and Lesley-Anne Down, as George Hazard and Madeline Fabray/LaMotte/Main. The whole thing is in depth and wonderful, making very compulsive viewing, i recommend it to almost everyone.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I thought this movie was going to be a disgrace to the series. After all, part 3 didn't measure up to part 2, and this one doesn't have Daniel Sawn. Miyagi's humour wasn't quite as witty in this one as in part 3, but it was funny enough to make the movie worth watching.

The girl's part was pretty good. She's a lost teenager who needs direction. I find the plot a little hard to believe. That the aunt would simply agree to leave her home and her niece under the care of Mr. Miyagi, a man she just met. Of course, he was a friend of her brother.

I did appreciate the monastery. One might think from some of my other reviews that I wouldn't have liked the dancing monks, but I thought it was amusing. It showed that they know how to have some fun. Now if these were monks in ancient China dancing to pop-music, that would have been another matter.

Probably the most intelligent part of the movie was when the girl thought it was stupid that the monks wouldn't kill a bug. Miyagi told her that street gangs killing each other is stupid, nations trying to destroy each other is stupid, but having respect for all life is not stupid. Miyagi has expressed such wisdom in the other films as well.

I give this movie a 4 out of 10. Sure, there were some things I liked about it. It wasn't as funny as part three, and no character could ever live up to Sato in part 2. This movie has no re-watch value. I can't imagine watching it again, but it is worth seeing once.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie ... I saw it 15 years ago and in the last years couldn't remember it any more, name or anything else, just it was about a Romanian country man played superbly by Anthony Quinn. The impression I got from this drama will be eternal. Finally I found the name of the movie, I hope I will be able to buy it. And honestly this movie worth 10 Oscars. Ten times BRAVO. I was quite young when I first saw the movie. I asked my friends if they heard about this story but nobody would know anything about Anthony Quinn playing the role of a Romanian peasant. I remember when a German officer came and saw Anthony and told him he was a good "breed" but in fact the German was cheating on him. For few bucks you won't get rich in case you buy the movie but you will be rich if you have it.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm amazed that "The Hospital" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Six months after high-school sprinter Laura dies during a race, a killer begins to murder the rest of the track team using a variety of sports equipment as weapons: that's the daft plot of early 80s slasher Graduation Day, a lacklustre addition to the genre that offers very little in the way of style, originality or decent gore.

What it does deliver, however, are some stunningly awful musical interludes, a few familiar faces (including an early appearance from scream-queen Linnea Quigley), and a smattering of nudity (a prerequisite of any slasher movie!).

So forget the death scenesthey're lame and rather bloodlessand instead enjoy the movie's more memorably crap elements: the rapid editing that can induce migraines and epileptic seizures; the roller disco, which is accompanied by a prolonged heavy rock song, ' Gangster Rock', as performed by the unforgettably awful Felony; an impromptu jamming session by the school's students; Christopher George hamming it up as chief red-herring Coach Michaels; and the cheesy music teacher who letches after his female students (who, for some reason, find him quite irresistible?!?!).

Towards the end of the film, the action picks up a little, with the discovery of the slaughtered kids' bodies under the bleachers, and a quite twisted scene featuring Laura's corpse in her cap and gown, but it all comes way to late in the day to save this film from mediocrity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.

The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.

Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.

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

negative
Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as "Throw Momma Off The Train."

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen! 

He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he IS Hamlet.

Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is.

If you like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek gives will leave you breathless.
What's an example of a movie review?

I just got it and it is a great movie!! i loved it! Although Jane Brightons voice n the beginning is so annoying because of her braces she don't open her freaking mouth...but ya have to watch it cause its a great movie!! the things he says in here are so funny and extremely cute!! and I'm sure Aaron would probably say some of the things in real life cause i don't know, it just seems that way!! ha ha there is a part in tha movie that is really funny...its wen Jane's little sister meets him...but i cant tell ya what happens cause ill just have to let u see for your self!! i went to go see Aaron n concert and it was so much fun!! n he smelled so good ha ha...i still cant believe i got to meet him!!! i have pictures if anyone wants to see them!! Steph
After a man turns up dead, a soldier becomes the prime suspect. Undoubtedly the best film to feature three Roberts and all of them are in fine form. Young is the cool-headed, pipe-smoking cop investigating the murder, Mitchum is the murder suspect's concerned friend, and Ryan is a hot-headed soldier with something to hide. Grahame has a brief but effective role as a femme fatale. Future Tarzan Barker has a bit part as a soldier. This film touches on anti-semitism, a subject also covered in Best Picture Oscar winner "Gentleman's Agreement," which was released the same year. It is solidly directed by Dmytryk, who creates an effective film noir atmosphere.

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

positive
The most enjoyable parts of this film were the clips from the original movie. The acting was poor and the premise of sexual scorecards was revolting. The effects were marginal at best. There were no stand out performances, Amy Irving was put in this film to try and get a part of the Halloween H20 audience. The original was much more enjoyable and gratifying. I am sorry to say that this is not going to be one of the years 10 best...so far it is at the bottom of my list. Don't bother with this one folks!!

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

negative
I absolutely adored this movie. For me, the best reason to see it is how stark a contrast it is from legal dramas like "Boston Legal" or "Ally McBeal" or even "LA Law." This is REALITY. The law is not BS, won in some closing argument or through some ridiculous defense you pull out of your butt, like the "Chewbacca defense" on South Park.) This is a real travesty of justice, the legal system gone horribly wrong, and the work by GOOD lawyers - not the shyster stereotype, who use all of their skills to right it. It will do more for restoring your faith in humanity than any Frank Capra movie or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And most importantly, I wept. During the film, during the featurette included at the end of the DVD - it's amazing. Wonderful film; wonderfully made. Thank God the filmmakers made it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The Assignment is an outstanding thriller with several plot twists driven by character, rather than star turns, the need to stage special effects, obligatory romance, and endless car chases. However, there is a car chase in here, and a dandy it is. Aidan Quinn is wonderful as both the terrorist and the naval officer "recruited" to eliminate him. It is rare that a second or third tier actor, such as Quinn, is given an important starring role like this that carries a film. Usually, such a role is given to an A-list actor with box office draw, which is probably why I never heard of this film before I saw it. Donald Sutherland is great as the morally ambiguous, somewhat creepy at times, agent that recruits Quinn. Ben Kingsley is fine also as the Israeli agent. The plot is very complex and there are multiple story lines, which converge in gradual fashion toward the end, and not all at once as we're used to seeing. The paranoia and claustrophobia of these type of thrillers is captured and portrayed with both moral ambiguity and frightening intensity. The locations are convincing and effective. The soundtrack is nothing special, but rarely do we get all of the above mentioned qualities these days, without dumb and/or meaningless plot developments; unconvincing star turns; loud, annoying, music video type soundtracks; a villain that hams it up; and repeatedly a cast, costumes, and plot that cater mostly to an audience under 25. This is an outstanding thriller, which most assuredly did not get its just due upon its release. ***1/2 of 4 stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series). 

Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10.
Write a negative movie review.

My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.

As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.

The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.

The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.

Rating: *1/2 out of 5.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his "I love what I know" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. "You messin' wit private stock." This is scriptwriting folks.

I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.

DIE Jeter, DIE!!!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.
This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I also have been a wife of an abusive husband, even if in my situation the attacks were psychological, not physical. He presented a very respectable, responsible and generous personality to anyone who saw us together, which, in contrast to myself, resulted in having others treat me as dull and unstable. Initially, I was so incredibly flattered that anybody like Gus (who worked in a bank and was handsomely confident) would even give me the time of day, and I fell completely head-over-heels for the IDEA of him, rather than the person he was. If I'd had my head on straight, and gotten to know him much better first, there's no way I'd have married him. However, that's my mistake. It wasn't my mistake to be abused. I didn't deserve that, nor did I see it coming until I was embroiled in the mind games, criticism and isolation. He acted like I had no business holding an opinion that differed from his own - actually he went further. If I didn't agree, he assumed I misunderstood, and increasingly simplified his wording ... by the time I finally lost my self-respect, I was incapable of recognizing the predicament I was in, and I had to be jolted to reality by outside influence. My dad said Gus called me a bitch. Well ... it was still a half-year before the rage that began at that moment finally exploded and I packed some stuff while he was at work, and I left. .. and it was still another several months before I could grasp the fact that I had been abused, and that it wasn't my fault he was doing the things he did. ..... so please, anyone who assumes it's the fault of the victim, THINK!!! If a puppy is kicked by a cruel owner when, in an anxious situation it has an accident on the rug, do you blame the puppy? by the time the abuse in a relationship reaches an obvious violent level, the target of abuse has been so wounded and depersonalized (much like in Nazi concentration camps) that it's nearly impossible to judge the circumstance accurately, because by then, the victim believes all the horrible things spewed by the abuser. Have a heart, people. Labelling abuse victims as stupid morons is like kicking someone who's already terribly beaten. -------> and this helps how???
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and has all of the "inside jokes" from the submarine force. A great cast with the stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the "Orlando" and our heroes on the diesel boat. Definitely "DBF" by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here? 

Line 10.
I remember when "The Love Machine" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.

Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an "ankh" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, "Xanadu" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.

"The Love Machine" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one overthe-top flaming male photographer's) affection.

Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.

For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic "fight scene." Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival "Valley of the Dolls"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, "The Love Machine" finally does something right.

Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's "The Lovomaniacs" and will revive the genre.

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

negative
After seeing this DVD, I was floored. It is SO wonderful. Not only does it capture Led Zeppelin during convented performances, they span a few years. This only shows the growth of the band, and the growth of their GREAT music. This DVD is a MUST HAVE! The DVD is over 5 hours long, with extras. The extras are also great pieces, some are of the band performing in Denmark, and other various promo spots. This contains footage that was once thought lost, thankfully recovered, and carefully restored to 5.1 Dolby Digital, under direct supervision of Jimmy Page himself! Includes many timeless classics, such as, Stairway To Heaven, Going To California, What Is And What Should Never Be, Moby Dick, and so many more. Great acoustic songs are also included. This will correct any forethought that Jimmy Page isn't a supreme guitar legend!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).

The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.

It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".

--PolarisDiB
It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a "Vacation" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Instead of watching the recycled history of "Pearl Harbor" with nothing new to reveal except for a couple of real events involving a few individuals thrown in so the makers of the film could say they contributed to the spread of history, along with nothing but CGI explosions filling in for a sappy romantic triangle. One should go see Dark Blue World.

This film takes place during the historic time in WWII which the Czech pilots left their homeland and went to fight for the RAF instead of laying down their arms and giving in to the Nazis. It was a part of history that should at least be told once to the outside world. A love triangle takes place between the main characters, but one of them does not die off conveniently like in Pearl Harbor, but through sacrifice for true friendship. The movie is tragedy after tragedy, with not even a bittersweet ending, with our hero not enjoying glory of taking his country back, the return of love by his current lover, the return of love by his reunited lover, or even the return of unconditional love by his life long pet. He is utterly heartbroken and feels no worse off in the Russian labor camp. This kind of ending is something that Hollywood would probably change if it was their script.

The movie does play on the sentimental sometimes, but it also shows the humanity of people. Overall, a worthwhile movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Wait till you watch this one.... I mean even after reading this review. No other movie till date has sucked more than this one.... One thing i wont understand is that, when you are ripping off some English flick why to add your own creativity? With the amount spent for making this movie the producers should have considered buying rights for "Cellular" to be dubbed into Hindi and released the movie. They might have gotten some profits that way i guess. If there was a chance to rate this movie with a 0 i would have done it and the most pathetic performances come from Tanushree Datta and the girl who played the sidekick to Aftab. I don't know if my problem is that i have seen Cellular much earlier than this movie..... but that cant be a reason to support this movie... i could go on for hours but neither i have the time to discuss about this useless crap of a movie not i want to remember those awful scenes from the movie.....

please stay away from this flick.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.

In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.

Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.

In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.
This is a delightful, they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore kind of film. Well performed by everyone and peopled with interesting character actors. An intelligent, witty script acted with the right blend of broad comedy and understated humor. Holds up for repeated (annual?) viewings.

**WARNING** the re-make of this film with the same name, directed by Arnold Whatwashethinking, is an unbearable mess - painful to watch - without a scintilla of the charm and wit of the original.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence "directed by Alan Smithee" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10
Write a positive movie review.

After the highs of darkplace it was never conceivable that Holness and Adobye would be able to create anything half as good as garth marengi. Yet i think that man to man in its own right is as good a show (on the good episodes) as darkplace. i cant argue that 2 of the episodes really are'nt that good but the other 4 certainly make up for it. if i had to pick 2 great episodes id go for formula4 driver Steve Pising (pronounced Pissing) and the great Garth Marengi. to already have a bit of understanding of the programme is a real plus as Dean Learner makes many inside jokes but even if you have'nt seen much Dean id recommend this as some of the rants he launches into are genius ie. His argument with Def Lepord over their name. All in All a great show which just misses full marks because of the couple of less funny episodes.
What's an example of a movie review?

This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called "The Eye 2" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch "The Eye" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If "The Eye" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.
This truly is an Australia cult classic. If you're one of the lucky ones to have seen it-- then you are very lucky. It has been released in most countries, but not in Australia for some reason. I have a copy on DVD from the UK. Not a great transfer, but I bought it, having seen it previously at a film festival. The directing is spot on and the performances rock! This is dark film scary film, but often times, very funny in parts. I urge you to see this film, there is a coolness about this you don't see in 99% of the typical Aussie fare. The screenplay is very well crafted and sends you on a journey where you know it will end badly, but until the last ten minutes, you just can't pick how badly. Great work from the four leads, especially Lachy Hulme. 

When its all said and done: Great work on display!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.
To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.

Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.

I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.

My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of "Asteroid" (with Annabela Sciora) and "Deep Impact" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.

I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The marriage of an upscale New York City couple with child falls apart when the wife wants out ("It took a lot of courage for her to walk out that door!" a neighbor tells us); the busy, distracted husband takes on the "motherly" responsibilities and grows closer to his son, but soon the wife returns. Highly manipulative picture doesn't give us a very realistic familial unit (with young Justin Henry certainly not resembling the product of a marriage between Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep!), but the dynamics are intriguing and involving, and director Robert Benton keeps the pace popping with lots of cleverness, marvelous classical music, canny editing and surefire bits of humor. Streep's character is designed to be a cold, self-centered witch, but I was ready to feel a lot more for her than Benton probably wanted. It all has to be painted in terms of black and white, good and bad, with Hoffman learning how hard his wife had it and getting a second chance at being a good parent. The film never falters from its preconceived path, and very fine acting nearly saves it, but I'm not sure where Benton was steering the film in the final act, and the closing scene is awfully abrupt. *** from ****

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

positive
I watched this episode a lot of times because I didn't get how Prue died. This is what happened. Prue, Piper, and Phoebe try and save their innocent,A Doctor, because Shax wants to kill him. Phoebe goes upstairs to look in The Book Of Shadows while Prue and Piper are protecting their innocent. Shax appears while Phoebe is still upstairs, so Shax throw an energy ball at the doctor but Prue pushes him out of the way and Prue get hit in the chest with it and smashes against the wall, same with Piper. So Phoebe comes downstairs and says the spell, since it was only Phoebe who said it and not the power of three Shax only got wounded. Phoebes calls Leo to heal Piper and Prue. So Leo heals them. Phoebe went into the Underworld to find Cole, meanwhile Prue and Piper are looking for Shax in the streets. Piper and Prue see Shax and Piper uses her Power to Blow up Shax, meanwhile a New reporter got it all on tape. So its all over the new about the three powerful Halliwell sisters, meanwhile Phoebe doesn't know anything because she is still in the Underworld. There's Repoters and people all over the Halliwell house. Then a maniac comes in the house and says "Can I be Part Of Your Coven?" and Prue says "No this is our house get out of here!" and Prue uses her powers to throw her out. As the maniac come out of the house crying saying "There Mean Witches". The maniac gets so mad that she shoots Piper right through the stomach. Prue get in her car and trays to go to the hospital but people won't let her through ,so Prue uses her powers to move people out of the way, making people wanna kill her more. They got to the hospital but Piper didn't make it. Meanwhile Phoebe is in the Underworld.Phoebe finds out that they have been exposed, so Phoebe asks Cole to ask the source if he can reverse time.The Source says he will only reverse time if Phoebe promises to stay here in The Underworld, so Cole told Phoebe what the source told him. Phoebe says "What would Make him think i would make a deal like that?" and then Cole says, "So you can save one of your sisters lives." Leo goes to the hospital to find out the Piper really is dead so he tells Phoebe that its true. Then Phoebe agrees to stay only if Cole will go back to warn Piper and Prue about the exposer and death of Piper. Back at the hospital SWAT is about the shoot Prue, but the second before they do time is rewound back when they were at the manor with the doctor but this time Phoebe wasn't there to call Leo to heal Prue and Piper, so the doctor get throw in the wall too. The doctor died and so did Prue. But this is what I didn't get, if Piper was throw against the wall too how come only Prue died? Why did they not show Leo come and heal Piper and Leo trying to heal Prue? If you know the answer please e-mail me at angelpuss924@yahoo.com PS. I miss Prue but I like Paige too and i'm glad the show continued

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

positive