cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

I did here this movie was good from various people. Plus I do like Natalie Portman and Javier Bardem as well as the director Milos Forman. Yet after watching this movie I really had nothing to admire about it.

First off the acting was very much below average. The performances were just not powerful enough to really feel shocked by what the inquisition did. Javier Bardem did give a solid performance and was probably the only one who actually had as Spanish accent. It is pretty obvious why this Bardem was the only one. Natalie Portman, who I think is a very good up and coming actress did not really make me feel sorry for her being tortured. Like the movie there was nothing to admire about her performance. Stellan Skarsgaard who I do like gave a very average performance, like the other actors giving a boring performance. This movie was essentially about him since he plays Goya. Yet he did not become what he needed to be to make this movie good. What about Randy Quaid? You have just got to be kidding me. Him playing King Carlos IV. Look he is great in comedies but him playing a King that just describes the whole movie for you.

The directing was just horrible in this movie. When a movie is a mess there are usually two people to blame for that: the director and the writer. I get the feeling that Milos Forman really didn't want his actors to put a Spanish accent on. From the very few battle scenes in here they were all displayed horribly. Also as a director he needs to give you the feeling of shock of what the inquisition did. After this movie I felt like I could careless about the event. To sum it all up he poorly shot the scenes and misguided the actors.

The writing which was also done by Milos Forman was just as bad or maybe even worse than the directing. There really was nothing memorable of the movie except for one seen where Bardem does get the same treatment that Portman's character has gotten. Other then that the movie did not give you the feeling of the time period and at least it could have made up for it with a quote or two.

After finishing this movie I was just looking at the T.V. thinking OK why should I care about any of this. I do care and are very much interested in history but when movies like this come up it feels like the producers robbed you of something good that could have been taken away from the movie. When movies are this bad we highlight a lot of the technical faults in a movie than if it was good. Like the accents. I'm not sure people would have emphasized the lack of Spanish accents if this movie was good.

Thw whole point of this review is to say just don't watch it.
Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too

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

positive
If you want to see a true thriller, rent this!!! It's not from the director or screenwriter of "Scream", doesn't feature overacting, overpaid "TV" actors passing off as "stars", and is not a run of the mill special effects bonanza. Instead you'll get a top-notch, edgy, very strong (in violence) yet thrilling nailbiter.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.

The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.

Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, "What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours."

I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.
This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.

My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.

The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What on earth? Like watching an episode of Neighbours after drinking two bottles of cough medicine- nightmarish and making no sense at all. I was waiting for the clever part where everything fits into place and saves the film. Maybe it was there and i just missed it, or was lost on me.

My strongest suspicion is that it is a thinly veiled attempt to market a new drug thats about to hit the streets. I wouldn't say "don't watch it" but I will say its pretty poor on every level- like am dram in high def. Whack. Unless you drink two bottles of cough syrup. Then it's just dandy.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.

The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...

After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.

And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film moved me at age 39 in the same way that all the footage and coverage of Dogtown affected me when I was 13. For all of those who criticized the self promotion of the Z boys interviewed, they have the last laugh on you. That was their whole deal, "we're better than all of you and here's why....(insert footage of the smoothest pool carve imaginable)" This was a film to tell their story and that was their story whether you like it or not. It was THEIR opinion of their skating that mattered..... not yours or mine. I thought the film captured their attitude and influence exactly as I remembered it in the 70's. The reality is that they DID revolutionize skateboarding, they WERE the impetus behind extreme sports and they DID inject a cultural paradigm that reached into every corner of americana. This movie gave rebirth to images of Bertleman on a wave and Alva and Jay Adams ripping up the coping that WAS the California Dream to an entire culture of young american teenagers that just wanted to have fun and get rad! As I watched this film I realized that it was these images that I lived with every day until I was old enough to move out and back down to So Cal after my family had moved to Nor Cal when I was five. Until I could get back, my buddies and I built and thrashed ramp after ramp, searched for every empty pool possible and mimicked everything Stecyk covered about these guys. We are all educated and have family's and careers now but this film reminds me who I was at that age and why I still surf. This is an inspired film that anyone who has an interest in pop culture, extreme sports, the 70's or even just good documentary film making will enjoy completely. Whenever it comes on cable I can't change the channel. Kudos to Stacy Peralta for making a beautiful piece of art!

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.

I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.
Determine the sentiment:

I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.

Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I went to see this movie not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by the teaming of Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy. It was a fast paced movie and the hour and a half went by fast. This one certainly won't win any Academy Awards but it was a change of pace for Mr. De Niro. He is good in comedy. Overall I enjoyed it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!

I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.

I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.

I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Oooooh man was I pleased I didn't miss this. I wanted to post this review as this episode in particular does what a certain recent movie did not. It pays true homage to the game DOOM. Its plot is different yes, and the characters are obviously set in an entirely different universe (obviously the doctor who universe) however the feel, the pace, the references and the location are perfect. And for all original Doom fans listen out for the door opening and closing sound effect, it was the icing on the cake for me.

Please all doctor who and Doom fans alike, check this one out. its a gem!

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Even the trailer for this movie makes me cry, like the first time I saw this movie. Not for people who are easily upset by intense material! The finest performances by Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe, without a doubt. This dreadful tale of a society with the power to kidnap and torture it's citizens for ANY reason, whether they are anarchist's or the writer of children's books will chill you to the bone. I saw it when it first came out 1991 and I remember every frame. It still scares the hell out me today. It's happening now.

Apparently, IMDb requires ten lines to meet their criteria for a film review. IMDb might want to GET A GRIP! Some of us are a little more succinct about writing opinions.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.

Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.

FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.

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

negative
Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.

Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.

It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.
this film is basically a poor take on the old urban legend of the babysitter who gets crank calls telling her to check the children, she calls the police who trace the calls and find there coming from inside the house. when a killer calls has a story so simplistic a little kid could have written it. not much suspense, it becomes clear who the killer is halfway through the film. at the beginning, when the first victim is killed it looks like a bondage fetish scene from a porn site or something. whats up with that? the film is oh so typical slasher fare with a plot about as original as a Beatles concert. even by low budget slasher standards its cheesy. don't waste your time with this. nuff said
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was such a great film. It was done with such beautiful design, such symmetry. I love the way the classical music tied in with the classical art of earth, space and beyond. It was such a fluent, and thought provoking masterpiece. I loved the way the monoliths never changed, although primate, earth and space did. I loved how it was a question of "Do you need me/us now"? The movie expressed desire, peace, love, curiosity, finesse, gentleness, courage and innocence. What more could you ask for from a mere movie? Perhaps a complement movie. Any appreciator of 2001: A Space Odyssey will find the movie 2010 is 2001's complement movie. 2010 is more story orientated than 2001.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.

However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.

Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.

Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.

Overall Grade - B
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's "cool" to hate, like "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "The Avengers") I ask them, "is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?"

This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
To paraphrase Thora Birch: "I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film".

This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?

But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. "My Teacher's Wife" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.

Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in "The Man In the Moon" and "Dazed and Confused". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father. 

As someone commented earlier, this is a "mature" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find. 

But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a "believable" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history. 

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

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

positive
Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.

18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.

Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...

Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.

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

negative
What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The Cure is one of the few movies I rated 10 out of 10. I mean, everything is flawless for me in this motion picture. I saw it almost a year ago, and yet I remember many of the scenes, especially the final touching scene that comes with the credits.

The two boy actors clearly gave everything they could and this greatly contributes the excellent storyline, making the film perfect.

The message is clear - friendship, and it's displayed throughout the whole thing.

I have nothing more to say here. Simplicity is one of the things I love so much about this film. And of course, it's fun and moving at the same time, suiting people of any age.

10/10, nicely done!
Determine the sentiment:

This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.

So much for "the biggest Greek production". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek "junta" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.

There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.

Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This interesting film noir features three very good performances: Sanders, Patrick, and Blackmer. The scenes between Sanders and Patrick are particularly outstanding. Demming, as the detective, is unfortunately not nearly as good. He lacks the intelligence, strength, and cynical world view of a Bogart. Had Humphrey played this part, we could have had a classic.

Pace, location (a library), and atmosphere are all good. But there are a few plot holes. Sanders strongly fears Blackmer and the ruthless organization (Nazis) he represents. Yet after mistakenly killing Blackmer, Sanders seems to experience no anxiety or remorse. Sanders then seizes the library and its occupants by using the ruse that he and his men are detectives investigating the murder. However, Sanders' hit man later tries to kill Demming by shooting him (without a silencer), even though the many other detainees could have been expected to hear, and become alarmed by, the noise. Finally, Sanders' hit man tries to kill Roberts, who has discovered the truth, but when she faints, he inexplicably does not. 

What bothered me the most, however, was that the chance for a great and unexpected conclusion was wasted. Throughout the film Patrick is portrayed as a smart, hard-as-nails sociopath fearing nothing. Yet at the end, she flees panic-stricken from the last surviving Nazi, a brutish thug. By the time the cops find him, he has killed her. And she ends up being just another weak, stereotypical victim. What should have happened is this: the cops find the Nazi thug, but he is dead. She has cleverly killed him, and then vanished -- to continue her evil ways.

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

positive
This review contains a partial spoiler.

Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work.

The plot is a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings himself.

Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to laugh at and aw over at the same time.

Find this movie. Watch it and enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary edition would be perfect NOW...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Dr. Stephens (Michael Harvey), head of a seriously understaffed institute for the insane, takes a 'progressive' approach towards the treatment of his patients, even allowing his loonies complete freedom of the building, day and night; he pays the price for his forward thinking, however, when he rather stupidly prescribes chopping wood with an axe as therapy for one of his patients and consequently gets his neck mistaken for a log (serves him right for not suggesting basket weaving).

Shortly after this tragic incident, nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the hospital to take up position as the doctor's assistant, and discovers that the facility is now being run by the much sterner Dr. Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick). Despite being unaware of her deceased predecessor's decision to employ Ms Beale, and not particularly eager to take on new staff, Dr. Masters agrees to let the pretty nurse begin work, but following several harrowing experiences at the hospital, Charlotte begins to wonder whether it might have been better if she had been turned away.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is actually happening at the hospital, the 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' schtick being a premise that should be familiar to most seasoned horror fans, but S.F. Brownrigg's Don't Look In The Basement still proves to be an entertaining piece of drive-in fun thanks to its well defined collection of nutters: lobotomised, popsicle-sucking Sam (Bill McGhee); Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross), who continuously mumbles courtroom phrases; old Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams), who recites William Allingham's creepy poem The Fairies and warns Charlotte of impending doom; cackling loon Danny (Jessie Kirby), who delights in teasing the other patients; Harriet (Camilla Carr), who thinks her doll is a real baby; army nut Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin); and best of all, Allyson King (Betty Chandler), whose rejection by a series of men has left her with a craving for love (ie., she tries to jump any man who goes near her).

This convincingly crazy set of characters, plus a bit of gore and nudity, reasonable direction from Brownrigg (who also gave us the impressive white trash horror Scum of the Earth), and a solid turn from Playboy covergirl Holotik, all go to turn an otherwise rather predictable, low budget piece of exploitation into a very watchable psycho shocker.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.

There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.

This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.

It was just painful to sit through.

The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.

Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This show makes me(and many others) hate their lives. Let's face it, Zoey is perfect; she's bland pretty, gets good grades, everyone goes to her for advice, she's popular, she goes to an amazing school with amazing rooms. Reasons why I gave this show a 3: 1. The acting is horrible.Sometimes I just want to hurt the people who put these untalented actresses(especially victoria justice) on television. 2. The characters are unbelievable and mismatched. You have your typical popular girl. A peppy, shallow, stupid ,stereotypical, girl who is portrayed by a horrible actress. Then you have a typical jock guy who is somewhat normal and actually nice.Then the stereotyped smart girl who is a freak and obviously does not fit in with the perfect popular friends of hers. Then a stuck up rich pretty boy that would be happier gazing into a mirror all day. Then the wanna be actress who is played by another stinky actress. And last a normal nerd person guy. 3. The plot is boring, and lame. 4. I hate how spoiled these characters are. Can't they just be normal! 5. Everything ends up perfect for them, and we all are reminded of how much our lives stink.
Not a good one. -Not at all.

This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.

It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.

I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than "The Amityville Curse".

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

negative
This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative