cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a negative movie review.

It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner 

The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents 

After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures 

Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.

Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the "core" of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.

You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?
From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).

The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.

If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This game has cartoon graphics, not much violence and really short levels - then why do people say it is so brilliant?!? Because it always holds your attention, it captivates you and refuses to let go! You will try for hours to try and find that damn flight recorder, try to work out how to get into the room without alerting the guards, etc! The levels are short only when you know what to do - until that, you will spend hours trying to figure out where to find correspondences, where to find helicopters and so on! And you'll have fun all the while you are doing it! Well worth a rent!
I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful, adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome, confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good as gold!
Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.

This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.

Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.

Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.

As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested. 

Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great. 

definitely could have been better.
Determine the sentiment:

This is actually a very good surreal mystery movie, despite the description that tries to sell it as a Sci-Fi movie. Balkan stars as a woman haunted by mysterious visions and lost memories that she is trying to piece together. She spends the majority of the movie trying to make sense of her visions. Very atmospheric and effective. It is true that Kinski does not appear very much in this film, but the staring actors are very good. There is only an English dubbed version available in the US, and the dubbing leaves something to be desired, but the actors do a very good job. The cinematography, by Academy Award winner Vittorio Storaro is excellent. An earlier Giallo by director Bazzoni, THE FIFTH CORD, is also excellent, and also lensed by Storarro.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This film is a tapestry, a series of portraits of Rom communities woven together by music. It's very much a musician's film, because of the paucity of spoken dialogue - and what dialogue there is, is not important to the structure of the narrative. Some might expect a National Geographic tale of "customs, dress, and music" or a plot-line orbiting a few central characters - don't look for that here.

This is because it paints a portrait of a family of peoples, rather than telling a story of individuals. The plot is the story through space (India to Andalucia) and/or/ time (we cannot tell) of a people. There is no need of narration. You get a sense of a joyous people, strongly linked in small communities where social interaction is very important. And a great sense of sadness in parts, at their rejection by society at large.

So it's a paean to Rom culture, very beautifully shot, with a wide spectrum of Rom music, and a sting in the tail which is the oppression these people have faced, and still face.
I cannot believe I let myself rent that piece of garbage! The acting was so poor, my Grandmother could have done better. The punches thrown in the movies were nowhere near the character the Scarecrow was knocking to the floor. The movie became a chore to watch! 

So this group of baseball jocks decide to go hazing, even after they weren't supposed to in orders form there coach under consequences. So, naturally, they go anyway. They decide to tie a loser to a post with the so called "Scarecrow." When the loser's best friend finds out about this, him and his girlfriend go to rescue him.

The kid is found out to have diabetes, and is hospitalized, while the jocks head out to the beach the next day. The scarecrow finds them there and kills them all pretty much.

I'm sure you really don't care. Anyway, the Scarecrow ends up having a connection with "Diabetes Boy" and the boy starts to finish off the scarecrows job once the scarecrow is killed. Yes, it is really really cheesy.

It thought this movie was full of bull sh*t. Sooner or later the only ones living (naturally) are the boyfriend and girlfriend who are the Main Characters :) The evil is then transfered to the boyfriend, and he kills himself to break the curse so nobody else will be hurt. Touching hey? No, don't waste your hard earned money on this, I give it a score of a one since thats lowest, otherwise, it doesn't even deserve that much.

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

negative
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: this show disturbs me. it takes up slots on nick at nite that could be reserved for the fresh prince or George Lopez. even full house and Roseanne. they're all better than home improvement. first off, the mother Jill annoys me SO much. she is an oversensitive whiny baby and i really despise her. brad is a fat toad, and he is annoying too. and the youngest brother, i don't even know his name! i don't notice him at all! that's probably not the actor's fault though, it's probably the writers'. Tim is just a stupid ass. although Jill is DEFINITELY my least favorite, i don't like any of them. the only reason i gave this stupid show three stars is one star goes to randy. as the middle child, he is still a pesky little brother, but an older brother, and i like his fun character. the other star goes to Al. as the chubby friend, his character is likable. other than randy and Al, this show sucks.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A big disappointment for what was touted as an incredible film. Incredibly bad. Very pretentious. It would be nice if just once someone would create a high profile role for a young woman that was not a prostitute. 

We don't really learn anything about this character, except that he seems to be a hopeless alcoholic. We don't know why. Nicholas Cage turns in an excellent performance as usual, but I feel that this role and this script let him down. And how, after not being able to perform for the whole film, can he have an erection on his deathbed? Really terrible and I felt like I needed a bath.
... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!

It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. "Meatballs" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch.

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

positive
this movie is such a good movie shah ruck khan does a great job as the crazy mad villain who is totally obsessed with

the girl the story is fantastic the acting by all

characters like the girl and shah ruck and Sunny are all fabulous and i really love the first song especially how it comes back at the end oh and its so emotional if your a true shah ruck khan fan you have gotta watch this movie because its the best shah ruck khan movie ever he plays an excellent role and i wish he done more crazy man roles but u have to watch this what so ever this is a really good movie this is a really good movie you have to watch it it is truly amazing you have to watch it it is fabulous i can go on and on about this movie because it is a fun funny scary cool and totally fantastic movie in the world
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Stars: Hayden Pantierre.

There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.

My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.
This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at.

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

negative
The first time I watched it was when it came out (1994), and the last time I watched it was just before writing this review.. It still makes me laugh my brains out...after all these years,it dose not disappoint. Truly the smartest Bollywood comedy ever made. This is one Indian movie which deserves its place in the IMDb Top 250. Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in probably one of their best performances in comedic roles. The thing that makes this one a time less classic is its comic timing and wonderful editing...The jokes are refreshing and not cheap.. This is one film truly ahead of its time. If you haven't seen it yet GO WATCH IT NOW !!!!!!!!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Like the first one,the team of JACKASS are back to try to kill themselves with whatever manner they see fit.Either,it's fitting yourself in a tractor tyre and rolling down a slope.Or getting yourself deliberately smashed by a bull.Or something even worse.

The first one was crazy,and that's how you can describe it.It was also really hard laughing film.But this one is completely nuts.It's got even more dangerous stunts,and even harder laughs.So,I think watching dumb idiots getting themselves killed is gonna be the funniest thing this week.

So,before BORAT comes out,I shall laugh my A** out.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the "Jumping Crocs" tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.

Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent. 

V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick. 

Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well. 

Loved it!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called "When Will I Be Loved", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.

I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.

Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.

Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)

There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...

I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier. 

A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills. 

The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers. 

While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10
What's an example of a movie review?

This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and I used to think it never really got its due. That is until I read the glowing reviews here. It seems many feel the same as I did when I first saw it.

It's a damn creepy film, and I've spent most of my life watching creepy films. I've always found dolls, mannequins and such damn creepy! Check out the dolls in "Beyond the Door" and of course the great "Trilogy of Terror". And what about the magnificent Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll". Hell, dolls are creepy! And Tourist Trap has some moments that will make your hair stand on the back of your neck. All aided by an excellent soundtrack that just makes Connors' performance even more heart-pounding.

I remember seeing the trailer to this film on late night TV and thing, "Wow, I gotta see that!" It was memorable. And it's one of the only trailers I remember seeing as a kid that creeped me out. Took me years to see it, but it was a treat.

Stephen King also mentions this film in his "Danse Macabre" book, and gives it a glowing recommendation. Pretty good company.

This film will always be high on my list of must-sees. It's a real solid addition to the genre of the time and deserves place alongside the best of the 70s schlockers.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I cant put it any simpler than that, this is a terrible film. I've worked in the industry and made several (short) films myself, so okay my standard is pretty high but seriously, i absolutely hate this film. I haven't made a comment on IMDb before but i hated this film so much i literally had to come and warn others. It is a piece of sh*t. The writer/director is an idiot who just has no idea how to make/write a good film and has the writing skills of an adolescent teenager. The characters are unrealistic (The lead woman doesn't think of taking the policeman's pistol yet is resourceful enough to improvise a Molotov cocktail? please...) and not even likable, hell i hated her and cheered when she died. I don't understand what the director was trying to do with his demon redneck idea, but it just looked like sloppy writing and convenient bullsh*t with no real thought behind it to me. This is officially the worst movie I've seen ALL YEAR. Congratulations Shiban, you now rank up there with such greats as Micheal Bay in the prestigious "shouldnt be allowed to waste millions of dollars on making a film" club. I hope you read this, i really do. And to the 163 idiots that rated this film 10 out of 10 BWAHHAHAHAHAh oh my god I hope a redneck demon appears conveniently behind you and tortures you.
This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.

The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.

If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.

Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I read on the web that this film is being remade into a theatrical feature. Finally!!!!! It's about time Hollywood got their act together. The big Studios always frown at edgy material, with Oscar written all over it. Go figure!!

JERICHO MILE was made ahead of it's time. It's a masterpiece.

Michael Mann, a true visionary, found a way to engage an audience without overindulgence. Peter Strauss' Emmy award performance is probably the best character role I've seen in my film-viewing lifetime. Any actor who touches this role will never be the same (unless an Academy Award is already sitting on their mantle).

The gritty multi ethnic ensemble, a backdrop for THE JERICHO MILE makes one understand the delicate social dynamics of our world. This is about redemption without public validation, and the power of the human spirit overcoming all barriers. Imagine a convict imprisoned since he was a teenager for life with no chance of parole, that doesn't know he is possibly the fastest runner in the world. ...what would you do??

This movie makes you walk away feeling you haven't been cheated on any level. Totally thrilling, engaging, emotional, and a "Rolling Stones" soundtrack that kick's ass!!!

I always thought this would be made for the big screen... Can't wait...!!! In the meantime I'll have to continue re-watching my weathered VHS copy I've had for many years.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to "portray" the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

Oh my God... where to begin? "Chupacabra Terror" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes "Demon Slayer" look like "The Exorcist". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.

First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a "cool" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad. 

Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied. 

The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick. 

The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable. 

I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something "different" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.
Write a positive movie review.

THE CELL fascinated me at first glance. I was a bit surprised about that fact, because the story of that movie is absolutely boring. If it had no story, the film would be better. Bunuels "Un chien andalou" comes to my mind- a film without story, but also with fascinating and sometimes disturbing images. But THE CELL is at first a Hollywood-Movie, and only second a piece of art. I'm very interested in Tarsem's next project. Hamlet on Indian could be very interesting, especially when it has the same looks as THE CELL.

For film music enthusiasts: Howard Shore's score for THE CELL is absolutely marvelous, but a hard listening experience, because of its very modernistic style.
Determine the sentiment:

an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.

Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.

-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.

-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word "vanished". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).

This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't)

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

negative
Back in 2002 when Matthew Lawrence did The Hot Chick, I also saw Drumline that day. Drumline wins by default! If The Comebcaks had been released in March (as planned) the same time TMNT was released, TMNT would've won by default! 

Granted, Matthew Lawrence did a fine job portraying a quarterback. He didn't have to resort to uttering dirty words which is a plus. But when he started playing with his private parts as well as another football players and touching a girl's boob, those were the minuses.

But the biggest minus that ticked me off is that every football player got to participate in the mock music video, except Matthew Lawrence (insert The Price Is Right's losing horns)! Another blown musical opportunity for him, just because he's shy about doing music.

In the past, Matt has disappointed me many times (Super Human Samurai Syber Squad) where he came so close to having a musical moment, but ended up failing.

Sure, Joey had a singing career with two albums to his belt and Andrew's starting a music career of his own. But it's very rare to find a Matt musical moment. The two that stand out would be on Brotherly Love where he played the guitar and sang "Pigeon On Your Car" (Art Atrack), which he wrote by the way, and that romantic Boy Meets World moment when he sang "This Dame" (As Time Goes By).

Matt, you've played jocks too long. Why not make a musical comeback. You have a good voice and I miss your musical side.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.
What's an example of a movie review?

Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people! 

Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off. 

So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.

Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.

I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..

-Rob Gruesome-
Write a positive movie review.

This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.

Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..

Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays?