cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.

A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.

Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.

What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's "performance". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

There were some decent moments in this film, and a couple of times where it was pretty funny. However, this didn't make up for the fact that overall, this was a tremendously boring movie. There was NO chemistry between Ben Affleck and Sandra Bullock in this film, and I couldn't understand why he would consider even leaving his wife-to-be for this chick that he supposedly was knocked out by. There was better chemistry between him and Liv Tyler in Armageddon. Hell, there was better chemistry between Sly and Sandra in Demolition Man.

There were several moments in the movie that just didn't need to be there and were excruciatingly slow moving.

This was a poor remake of "My Best Friends Wedding". Wait until it's been out for a year and a half on video and rent it in the .49 cent bin if you've got nothing else to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon, and you can't think of any better movies to rent.
Write a negative movie review.

Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?

Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and Tanishaa

The film is so horrible it makes you cringe

the jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkey

Tanishaa resembles an idiot 

The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is good

Uday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay
This movie is such a fine example of the greatness that is 80's entertainment. Oh don't get me wrong, most of the music back then sucked. I only ever liked the metal bands from the 80s. Bands that had some balls. Forget that whiny keyboard crap and all that 'life is horrible and I want to die' garbage. But the movies from the 80's are the best. They were all about nonsense and just having a good time. This movie exemplifies that! Party! Get naked! Get laid! WOOOOOOHOOOOO!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.

It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.

In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.

The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.

Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and "aren't we oh-so-clever?"-ness.

Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.
Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as Blade, a half human, half vampire known the daywalker. He has all their strengths and his only weakness is the thirst for blood. Since he teamed up with whistler (Kris Kristofferson) he has hunted down vampires who have lived amongst us unnoticed for centuries, but omnipotent overlord Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) is tired of living in harmony with the humans (Food as he calls them) and he plans to waken the blood god and take control of the world.

This movie is well cast, written and directed; ensuring the viewer has a thrilling ride from start to finish. Packed with great fight sequences and slick dialogue, Blade is certainly more action than horror, but it definitely delivers.

8/10

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

positive
I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )

The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.

So not the best one...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This was a movie that could have been great if there were not so many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and if the actors had been chosen or made up to look a little more like the real persons (not very difficult). Sissi did not go to Mayerling to see her dead son, she also did not die in the street; they carried her on to the boat and then back to the hotel, which was much more dramatic. I am not sure about the wedding night, but I find it exaggerated that a lady-in-waiting would undress the empress and leave her completely naked (and that in the 1850's) or that the emperor would announce very proudly "yes I finally laid her" to the assembled court. As far as I know this was done right away on the first night and nobody rewarded her as if she were a streetwalker. The saving grace of the movie is really Stephane Audran, excellent actress and true to character.
What's an example of a movie review?

. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I am a big fan of "Auntie Mame" with Rosalind Russell. She really was the perfect actress to play that character.

I've heard Angela Lansbury was very good on stage in "Mame" but it's hard to imagine anyone topping Rosalind Russell.

Lucy was such a great comedienne that her comic bits salvaged her performance in this movie where I think she was miscast Really, they should have dubbed her singing voice - hearing these songs sung at a faster tempo and with strong voices really changes the whole effect. 

I just saw the stage revival in Washington D.C. and I think Christine Baranski was very good as Mame, Harriet Harris - the nasty chain smoking agent on Frasier - played Vera and she was particularly good.

Both would be good casting for a TV movie of this show. Maybe if that production makes it to Broadway they'll consider filming it.

Also I think Tracy Ullman would be good as Agnes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Nuovomondo (2006)" (shown in the U.S. as "The Golden Door") was written and directed by Emanuele Crialese. This film is different--and, I think, better--than most movies about impoverished people who leave Europe and come to the United States.

The film begins with scenes in a poor, rural region of Sicily. We always hear that Sicily is a rocky island, but you won't really understand the implications of that phrase until you see the first half-hour of "The Golden Door." 

The middle section of the film is devoted to the long voyage to the U.S. Most immigration films show us ten minutes of people in the third-class section becoming seasick, and then show us the Statue of Liberty. Not this movie--we get a sense for life below decks, and it isn't charming. (We never actually see the Statue of Liberty, either.) 

Finally, the typical movie will give us another ten minutes of Ellis Island, and then the immigrants are walking through New York's Lower East Side. Not here--the Ellis Island experience occupies about one-third of the footage. 

Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as Salvatore Mancuso, who is bringing his two sons and his mother to the new world. Charlotte Gainsbourg is equally good as Lucy Reed, a mysterious Englishwoman who also speaks fluent Italian.

There are some strange touches in the movie, especially the sound track with songs by Nina Simone. There must be some symbolism there, but I couldn't make sense of it.

Another reviewer has already pointed out that this film will do better viewed in a theater rather than on DVD. Still, large screen or small screen, it's worth seeking out.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Like almost everyone else, I became aware of this turkey on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It easily ranks as one of my favorite MST3K episodes of all time. I really couldn't imagine attempting to watch this film on it's own though.........it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

Miles O'Keeffe stars as Ator, a muscle-bound Fabio wannabe who lives during the time of cave men. We the viewer are asked to suspend our disbelief in that he knows alchemy and chemistry and can manage to build a complete hang-glider in about 5 minutes. Yeah, right! There's also a fairly attractive actress (can't remember her name) who wears a hub-cap as a chest shield. Oh, and I can't forget that wacky Asian side-kick Thong. He had the easiest role in the movie since he doesn't utter one word of dialogue throughout the entire movie. He had to figure out how to make his character interesting without talking.....and he failed miserably.

The film isn't watchable in any way and should be only viewed in it's proper MST3K format. If you watch that version, you'll laugh yourself silly!

"I'm HUGE!!!!"

Rating:1

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The movie starts with a board meeting at a major advertising agency. Putney Swope is on the board for no other reason than the fact that he is black, and the agency needs a "token" on the board. Swope is ignoring the meeting, reading Jet magazine at the big table, and everybody is ignoring Swope... Suddenly, the CEO croaks on the spot. No time is wasted. A janitor is called to haul off the corpse, and the board immediately and unceremoniously tackles the business of electing a new CEO. And as the votes are tallied one by one, the tension is built up and then finally snapped in a hilariously ironic climax to the vote, that gives the viewer a delicious dish of logical implications to savor for the rest of the movie. If you've ever talked back to some stupid television commercial, you'll like seeing this movie. Too bad there don't seem to be any real Putney Swopes in the world.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Since watching the trailer in "The Little Mermaid II: Return To The Sea" DVD, I had a feeling that this movie is gonna be great 'cause I am a huge Disney fan. And guess what? I'm right! This movie is a very worthy successor to the original classic "Lady and the Tramp".

It tells the story of Scamp, Lady and Tramp's mischievious son Scamp, who wants to be wild and free instead of living a housedog life. Though the movie might not be as good as the first one, it has a great moral that you couldn't find anywhere else until you watch it.

I admit that the movie isn't for everyone, but those of you who hate it, all I can say is that you don't have a spirit for this and I suggest that you shouldn't go see it again. But hey! It's really an awesome story, packed with brilliant animation, music, and star-studded voice talents featuring Scott Wolf(Party of Five) and Alyssa Milano(Charmed). So if you haven't seen the movie, why standing there? Go and grab the copy!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I found the movie at my local video store and I was surprised to see it on DVD. I had heard about the explicit sex scenes, gruesome violence, and the notorious debauchery. I sat and watched and I began laughing! The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written! The incestuous relationship between Caligola (Malcolm McDowell) and his serenely beautiful sister Drusilla (Theresa Ann Savoy, a vulnerable beauty) can't be taken seriously...it's not even shocking or repulsive! Peter O'Toole and John Geilgud were obviously held hostage during the making of this film luckily they die in the first thirty minutes of the film. The cinematography was a joke and I was even more amused when they used a quote from the Bible! The book of Mark no less. If you are looking for shock value, this movie will disappoint you. If you are looking for camp cult value, you will be even more disappointed. I know I was. I have seen shocking and this is two hours of your life you will never have back.
Write a negative movie review.

i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Forgettable pilot that never really explains why Nostradamus is really important to the plot of this movie, but Rob Estes plays a a hunky cop who happens to be Nostradamus for some reason and who battles time-travelling Medieval monks that run around with guns and set people on fire to start the apocalypse. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy FBI agent who happens to be a pyschic and is trying to get Rob to believe everything before it's too late. Too bad they couldn't predict a better plot. Yawn.
The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.

Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.

No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD.

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

negative
Before I'd seen this movie I've heard a lot of praise about it and quite many exclamations about how "horrific" it was. Not to take any credit away from this movie, I think it wasn't all that horrible or even shocking. It's just a movie about people living in the darker side of the town. And a good one at portraying the point.

There's some great acting here and a well-thought of manuscript. Paavo Westerberg is a renowned writer in the Finnish movie scene and he's the best in what comes to describing the contemporary Finnish culture (albeit he's not the only one writer for this movie, but I dare say he's the main-writer anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong).

The casting is excellent, except for Jasper Pääkkönen (the pseudo-main character, who in my opinion should have stayed in the soap opera scene), and the sets, the cuts and sounds are very well done as well and give great atmosphere to this movie.

This movie is a story about loosely interconnected sad destinies that according to a famous Finnish band's very well known song (Eppu Normaali's "Tuhansien Murheellisten Laulujen Maa", which VERY roughly translated to "Paha Maa") throughout the whole Finnish society lead to a sad, dark end accompanied with booze, lonesomeness and the bad choices. And it's the side of everyday Finnish life about 80% of the population have no awareness of, unless movies like this are made.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.

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

negative
If you enjoy suspense this movie has it. The fact that Marina Zudina portrays a mute adds to her haplessness and increases the suspense. Alec Guiness's appearance was nice, but didn't really add to the movie. I'm not sure if Evan Richard's part as Andy Clarke was an attempt to add a little humor or if he was supposed to just be a bumbling idiot. I thought the cinematography was excellent. This added not just to the quality of the production but to the suspense as well. The bathtub seen with the water droplets in slow motion was wonderful. Also the scene where the knife comes down and then it switches to Andy Clarke cutting an extremely rare piece of meat was very well done. I would call it overall good entertainment
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
House of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.

A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.

Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.

The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .

House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

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

positive
There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these "Vice Academy" films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other "plot" elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you want to see the true, vile nature of Communism, watch the movie DARK BLUE WORLD. (Tvamomodrý Svet) It recounts how the brave Czech pilots who refused to surrender fled to England to join the fight against the Nazis. After the war, the Communists feared they had picked up dangerous Western ideas about freedom. So, they had these heroic Czech pilots thrown into a nightmarish prison, where some of the guards were the same Nazis they risked their lives to defeat.

If Hollywood wants to understand why so many of their movies fall flat, they should compare the character drama portions of "Pearl Harbor" with this movie. In Dark Blue World, you really make a connection to all the characters. In Pearl Harbor, everyone is like some slick cartoon version of a real person.

There are innumerable instances of brilliant writing in this movie. One funny scene that sticks in my mind is when the character Karel is being taught English by a rather formal Englishwoman. When he can't pronounce a word, he ridicules the lesson. In typical stoic English fashion, the teacher calmly but forcefully confronts Karel, and shames him into behaving.

The aerial battle sequences in this movie are amazing, and they help to keep the movie lively. I read that it cost $11,000 an hour to rent the planes, but it was worth every penny.

Ladies, you are expected to cry at sad movies, but guys.... beware! This movie would make General Patton weep. And if you are a dog lover, you'll use up half a box of Kleenex. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.

This was the first movie for the "straight to video market." So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.

I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.

If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.

Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The "supporting" actress is a train-wreck of a human.

I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.

So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

"House of Dracula" is a good sequel to "House of Frankenstein". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his "affliction" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in "House of Frankenstein"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was actually around 13 years old camping near the McCloud River, near Shasta when this movie was being filmed. My family was paid to leave our campsite for the afternoon, when they filmed Vincent floating down the river. A little trivia...the scene where they pulled him out, was actually where he started his float down the river. And if the stunt man missed the netting, there was 20 foot waterfall about 1/4 mile down farther.

Anyway...I watched it at the time, and didn't get it. It wasn't until years later when I saw the movie and actually understood the meaning of it. It's pretty powerful movie and certainly a fine job by Jan at such a young age. His movie career never really took off as expected, but of course he later found success on TV. I wish this movie was available, cause I would love to see it again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals.

The story, set in a turn-of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent. Their quiet new help - whom they "teach" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that.

When Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life.

This is a must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's.
Edith Nesbitt's best book has been adapted into a truly magnificent film, I love it. The film itself has gorgeous cinematography, and fine realisation of the subject matter. The ending is enough to have you in tears, as it is so beautifully done. Lionel has directed some truly excellent films, like the Amazing Mr Blunden, but this is his best film as director by a mile. The costumes were absolutely lovely, that matched the beauty of the countryside, and the sparkling and conveniently-faithful script helped matters. However, it is the quality of the acting that holds this film together, as it is nothing shorter than incredible. Dinah Sheridan is suitably sincere as the mother, a much-needed characteristic of the character, and Bernard Cribbins was hilarious as Perks. In fact, I preferred Perks on film, as he isn't as humorous in the book. The children were perfect. Gary Warren and Sally Thomsett both gave spirited performances, but it is Jenny Agutter's enchanting portrayal of Bobbie that impressed me the most. Another special mention is the gorgeous music by Johnny Douglas, the title music reminded me of Charlie Chaplin's Smile. In conclusion, a funny and poignant masterpiece, that is better than the book, I think. 10/10. Bethany Cox.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

"Death Wish 3" brings back Charles Bronson as one time vigilante Paul Kersey,now retired.yeah,right.before long Kersey is back to his old ways.but this time,its not just a few muggers at a time,its a gang who have taken over a run down part of the city(New York again,by the way.)this time its war,so Kersy Hauls out the big guns(literally) for this.the body count int his one rivals anything Stallone or Schwarzenegger have come up with.this movie is actually somewhat fun to watch,particularly for a few one liners and of course bad guys die,or get severely injured in creative ways,which is always a good thing.the violence is not as personal in this one,its,obviously on a much grander scale,sort of like bombing your victims from afar,rather than one on one combat.this movie is lighter in tone than the 1st 2,making it easier to watch.there's not much import to this film,its more escapism than anything.its also cheesy at times and pseudo-inspirational,but hose scenes fall flat. they should have left the original "Death Wish" on its own without sequels,but since they didn't,they should have stopped here. 8 /10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.

The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.

There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.

The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic "pods" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.

But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.

Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns !
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

So the WWE has done it. They have poured over into film;their first one being See No Evil, starring their very own Kane. I caught this movie and went in not expecting it to be a great film...It just seemed to cliché and looked like nothing new. To my surprise it actually wasn't half bad. A viewer stated above that it is good B-horror movie fun, and honestly thats the best way to describe it. Now the question I was asking myself was how was Kane going to hold up...Well let's just say he made an absolute bad ass out of the 'Jacob Goodnight' character. He sold the role really well, and really did look menacing. But what can you expect from someone who is almost 7 feet tall and weighs around 320 in solid muscle. The acting was decent, and the story was nothing new of course, but we all know that. The directing as well as the cinematography was done very well and the hotel backdrop really looked dilapidated and well done. Considering this was directed by a porn movie director, I was quite surprised. I'd recommend this movie if you're looking for mindless gore and killing and just some overall fun. Think of this movie as a modern day latter Friday the 13th film. And save room for the ending too, cuz it's a good one. And stick around after the credits too...
Write a negative movie review.

It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.
I haven't seen this fine movie in 50 years but I'm entering a comment on it anyway.

While JACK WEBB'S movie was no doubt intended purely as an entertainment --- showing Marine basic training at Parris Island in realistic terms as a tough character-building exercise -- it was said the military was afraid the movie would discourage recruitment's. It did not work out that way. The movie showed that entering the Marines was a greater challenge than most young people ever realized, and (guess what?) being offered a king-sized challenge was exactly what many guys wanted. I personally knew lots of guys that joined the Marines shortly after seeing THE DI. Lines at recruitment centers were suddenly so long the Marines had more recruits than they could handle.

So it goes. America will always have youth seeking to make themselves into the best --- while the slackers and born-losers limp along to nowhere. 

What we DON'T have in 2007 is any films that inspire patriotism, devotion to duty of any kind, positive values, et cetera. What we DO have is films that inspire the airhead-ed to be airheads, the beer drinkers to guzzle beer, other negative values. Exhibit #1 is that the airhead teen travesty and beer guzzling epic SUPERBAD is now #81 in the All Time Great Films list. Values? What'cha mean, values?

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.

This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.

The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.

The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.

Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.

The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.

Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.
I thought that this was the most interesting film that JCVD has done in a very long time. I loved his character and the whole thing with the rabbit set a different tone for this film. IMHO, JCDV may really be on to something going forward. A little more light heartedness, some obvious homages to other films, mixed in with some great fights...I would like to see more this style of film-making from him. One of the other posters thought that the bar scene was a Desperado rip off. I immediately saw the R. Rodriguez connection also, but thought it was very clever and made me want to see the film again to look for more subtle cues from other films. JCVD rocks!!

Other stuff after reading other comments:

No music in the dungeon fight? At first I didn't like that at first either, but then I thought it was interesting because it threw me off balance a bit by giving us something that we didn't expect. Made it seem more real.

I also always get a laugh when directors cry like 2 year olds that their film was "stolen" from the studio. Directors are paid to do a job. The studio is the boss and they want the product that they want. Very few directors have absolute final cut on a film. In this case, JCVD is THE talent and the only reason anyone is watching this film. I am sure he got a film that he was happy with. I have a relative who works at a post house who knew a little of the story. PRESUMABLY, the director worked on and delivered his cut of the film. Everyone who saw it said it was a disaster...then JCVD and the studio re edited the movie. This stuff happens all the time. He also did see the final cut (which he claims he didn't) and his "delicate genius" ego was severely bruised because they hated his delivered cut. If this director was smart, he should have taken credit for this one as it would have been his best.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive