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

Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...

This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!
TANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film. 

The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note... 

I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both.  I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work.   Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 4/10 
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:

Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.

Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.

Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.

Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.

Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.

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

negative
Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I had high hopes for this production, being one of my favourite works.

Indeed, a lot of it is reasonable: Helen Baxendale is not a bad Lady Macbeth, but lacks the devilry which the original character is infused with. Many of the minor characters do well, and the Scottish settings are superb.

The big disappointment to me is Jason Connery in the title role: he seems to be reading his lines off a cue card with the wrong glasses - surely for the first time, as well. He can do so much better. Any production when compared to the sublime Ian McKellen (Macbeth 1979)who to my mind gave the gold standard performance, is going to struggle to be appreciated, but I actually fell asleep and had to rewind this one before I could get through it - hardly a great sign.

Honestly, one to Avoid.
As you can see I've submitted 2 comments about this show since 1991....and no, ITV have still not made it available for general release.

HOWEVER, I recently contacted ITV to see if there was any way of getting hold of a copy, and this was their reply.......

"Unfortunately there are no plans for this programme to be released on DVD/video. You can however, purchase copies from our Viewers Requests dept. Their email address is: viewers.requests@itv.com ".

Hope you all now get the chance to enjoy this classic short comedy again.


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

positive
So unfortunately me and my mate watched this!!! It was showing on a Sky channel over here called "Zone Horror" which basically shows crappy B-movie horror films 24/7. It was a boring Friday night, so decided to have a laugh and give this one a look. Apart from the atrocious acting, the awful plot, the dire effects, the shoddy camera work and the brain numbing ridiculousness of it all, it was OK, LOL!!! In all seriousness it was quite a laugh picking holes in it and laughing at the goofy actors. There is a bit of semi-nudity which perked the movie up a bit, unfortunately it was the "uggo" who got topless as my mate calls her :oD If you're bored one evening and this happens to be playing, take a chance, you just might like it :)

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: (spoiler) it could be the one the worst movie you see, you might like it like I did I really like it. Its one of those odds movie. 

There is man who seen to have a had day in life. Blacks rats some how feel sorry him (which I think was a good Idea).

The killer rats become friends with man two big man come making feel unwanted so the man set the killer rat on them and floor to floor both bodies covered in big black rats not that much blood.

but think about big black rats all over body) but start to little killing people but rats are going over-bored until the rats kills his friends and girlfriends, 

Ther one scene in were seating on the toilet while rats are going into the pipes leading to toilet and rat goes up his you know and come out of his mouth, (which mean the rats must off eaten everything inside in body's) I had me laughing for weeks

why did i like this movie, yes it's different of the rest, I for ONE like it when little creature takes on mankind. 

if you have seen any of these movie slugs, slither, Them, spiders, snakes, tremors ,Cujo, crocodile, shark, octopus.

If you liked them and check out Hood rats, 

it better then Terror toons that all I Can say! 4/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I grew up outside of Naila Germany(where they landed),every detail of the film was 100% authentic,the power lines that they flew over,the nosy neighbors,the grandmother telling the kids that they cant watch west German TV,etc..This movie brings back lots of good memories to those that are European,a great production from Disney...The same movie in German has Klaus Lowitsch and Gunter Meisner using their own voices for translating the English version into German...for the German version they also use Cookoo birds ,a bird that is native to Germany as background noise to let you know that you are in Germany..I showed this move to many of my German relative and they really liked this movie.(these people made made a prototype balloon which they had to give up because the materials that they used was too porous and the other 2 balloons that they used for the escape.The burner problem was solved when they turned the propane cylinders upside down.)
I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - "Come on, get with the Pepsi generation". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - "Would you buy a used car from this man?" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. "Joe" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from "Joe" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in "Young Frankenstein"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Surprisingly effective British drama about two very different people who find common ground, and in particular the "flowering" of one of them. An embittered, "Spike"-type youth (McAvoy) with Deuchennes MD is placed in a home for the disabled and quickly makes friends with a youth (Robertson) with cerebral palsy. Robertson has never known anything outside of the home, but McAvoy has and he is bound and determined to get back into the real world. Together, they manage to do just that in this funny and heartwarming and often heartbreaking tale of inner strength overcoming physical shortcomings. The two leads are terrific, especially Robertson, who must surely have spent some time studying the disabled to pull off this tricky role. He appears in almost every scene, and acts up an absolute storm. To anyone who doesn't know, they might think he really has CB. Highly recommended.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like "PITCH BLACK" "THE THING" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.
Write a negative movie review.

If you are planning to watch 'Partner' and are on IMDb reading reviews about it, you have already wasted too much time over this stupid, idiotic, awful movie.

It's a horrible, horrible, horrible copy of the movie 'Hitch.' I choose to ignore all the other warnings and bad reviews I had heard about this movie, and wasted a precious 20 minutes on it - I thought that after all its David Dhawan who is making it, and it has Govinda - how bad can it be? But after 20 minutes of watching this nonsense, I couldn't take it any more, and turned off my computer.

Overacting by everyone in the movie, stupid dialogues, total time waste - I gave it a 1-star rating because that's the lowest you can do. If I could go lower, I would have given it a -100 rating.
This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.

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

negative
I saw this movie on a night i couldn't sleep, i loved it and searched to find out when it would be on again, probably the best movie i have ever seen, at the time, and even now the cast is full of people i had never seen before but it seems like a real life story based out of NYC, This is the kind of movie that elevates the viewing pleasure because you see it, hear it and feel it, from the moment i saw Wirey drinking a beer and watching the game i imagined what it must be like to grow up without a father, there are so many lines from this movie i use on a daily basis like "the personal alone time" in the bathroom drinking a 7-11 beverage, GREAT FILM
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Yes.A real stinker. I saw this movie on the advice of my "sweet" friends who told me that this is a great "psychological" movie. This film makes every effort not to be understandable. I was aware that I was in for a stinker after seeing the first 20 minutes.I waited since I expected to see something valuable, and most important of all, I PAID for this film. The wait was unbearable. After seeing the film, I talked with my friends and learned that in the intellectual environments ( They call themselves under this title ) of Turkey this "movie" had recognised as a masterpiece. Yes, a masterpiece, but in the category of stinkers.I think that a movie must be self-explanatory. This film is just the opposite. Keep away from this thing which calls itself a "movie". Burn your money instead of paying for this "phenomenon". Rate: 1 out of 10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I just saw this movie on Showtime in the wee hours of the night. I was viewing the beginning with one eye open, but instead of drifting off to sleep, I became invested in this crafty, nail-bitter of a movie. It was very believable and engaging. I could have done without so much profanity(as with every David Mamet movie I see), but thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I know teenagers swear, but I don't need to listen to it. Anyways, the story had some interesting surprises which I won't reveal but if you have a chance to catch this movie on Showtime, I think you will enjoy it as much as I have.
Write a positive movie review.

This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal à la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.

The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.

There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless. 

The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.

Find this film and bathe in it.
What's an example of a movie review?

Mr Baseball was a fun video rental with my Fiancé Susan Nauss. Susan said that she had been looking forward to seeing the movie. Ken Takakura Oda as a tough yet Honorable Manager makes sense. Ken Takakura has made so many wonderful Asian movies, I correct the one reviewer and say Takakura is still a Cinematic Presence with films like Hotari. Of course everyone likes Tom Selleck yet Ken Takakura is the better dramatic actor of the two. Today someone accused me of being Yakuza, well I say that My Great Uncle Shadow President Jack F Kennedy myself and others are part of the legitimate Human leadership in our Universe and thanks to our coCreators Humans are free people fighting all the parts of adversity that President Kennedy talked about in his inaugural address. To be honest someone has kept food prices very low in Canada on things like bread. In honor of our CoCreators please stop eating amphibians reptiles and eggs. I hope that there will one day be a sequel to Mr Baseball with Father Ken Takakura Oda still as Manager. Thank you to IMDb for supporting freedom of speech like the kind President George W Bush and I support. Support IMDb.
Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.

This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If we consider three films with a similar subject, which are this one, which was made in 1930, 'The Covered Wagon', made in 1923 and 'Wagon Master' made in 1950, the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'The Covered Wagon' is only 7 years whereas the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'Wagon Master' is 20 years. This is amazing because it shows how much movies evolved in those 7 years, and how in the next 20 years the changes were slow to come. 'The Big Trail is technically close to 'Wagon Master', but ages apart from 'The Covered Wagon'. The story is about the pioneers going from the Missouri to the west in Oregon. Tyrone Power Sr. is the man leading the caravan, he is a rough and mean guy. John Wayne is the good guy and the film makes too much of a point of his good looks, not giving him a chance to be the Wayne that we are used to. Marguerite Churchill is such a proud lady that you wonder why Wayne just does not forget her. Raoul Walsh was a master at showing caravans and cattle moving through the west, he directed 'The Tall Men' in 1955, which has a lot in common with 'The Big Trail'.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.

The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.

The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.

As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10

I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...

Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.

The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.

The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.

The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.
What's an example of a movie review?

What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched.
What's an example of a movie review?

I caught this filmshow about the most unlikely, success? ,from a lower league, football team. The plot is thick and roles out some great tenuous twists and turns. Intercut with shots and commentary from the 70's .I was taken aback by its shear footy fun.

A great cast includes the excellent Tim Healy as the crazed(drunk) manager , bumbling along hanging on to anything that will make his team win...? I keep remembering bits such as the stolen secret file that Don Revie( Super leeds united and england manager-loved by the fans hated by everyone else)has on Bostock United ( the underfelt men) which in its detailed report of their opposition, Bostock United, in this the FA Cup final, merely says "Sh-te".

Lots of other footy gags a long time before the fantastic feature length "Mike Basset - Football Manager" Starring Ricky Tomlinson.

Up there with the, Gung ho English beating Germans, at football. Well morally.Although the score lines says different , of "Escape to Victory" ( I still cheer when England score )

And the thankless eternal grind of following a really bad team in Micheal Palins "Golden Gordon" from "Ripping Yarns" series ( with Terry Jones)the team were called Bostonworth United ,in case your interested.

I've looked high and low for a copy of Bostock's Cup-even Nick Hancock's biography doesn't list it ( probably someone -not mr hancocks- error)

Play it again or sell me a copy- PLEASE....
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

In 1983 two Bond movies was made, one was the official Bond movie Octopussy starring Roger Moore who starred as James Bond for the first time in Live and Let Die and the other was the unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery who played the role as James Bond for the first time in Dr. No, that film was also the first 007 James Bond movie to be made. Never Say Never Again is called unofficial because the company that made the other James Bond movies didn't make this one. Never Say Never Again is also a remake of the 1965 007 movie Thunderball, there are several differences in Never Say Never Again that lets you know it wasn't made by EON. One thing is that the opening is different, there's no gun barrel sequence and no pre-credit sequence, another difference is the music score. Some things in this movie does feel like a James Bond movie like the gadgets and cars, plus James Bond always getting it on with the ladies and the film does have an opening credits song. Sean Connery still does a great job playing Bond, the acting from the other stars is also great. 

Never Say Never Again is a good film that's just has entertaining as the official James Bond films. Check this out. 10/10
Write a negative movie review.

Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.

Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster! 

Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.

For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I don't know how this film went unnoticed for so long.

I saw this film on TV, i was flipping through the channels and came across this unexpectedly well made film. i missed the first, probably , 10 minutes, but that does not matter..this film literally gripped me, it is a real spine chiller.

The absence of well known actors in the film adds on to the effect,u do not know what to expect from the actors because they are new. U never know when they will get killed or what they are up to. so it is all the more tense.Even though there are many new faces their performances were top class.

The filmmakers play with your mind, just revealing enough gore to make imagine the rest. The shock, fear, horror and helplessness are also brought out well by characters in the film.

The well written situations n twists,fast camera movements, slick editing and superb direction makes it an excellent suspense thriller. This film actually switches between the genres - horror and suspense thriller leaving the viewer clueless and tensed. Undoubtedly comparable to Hitchcock. 

I could not even move from the TV even during the commercial breaks .. i was the helpless MUTE WITNESS to this superb film.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As a reviewer has already commented, this made for tv comedy is up there amongst the best football parodies ever. But....having failed to video it when it was first aired, I now find that it isn't around in any format. OK, so this has only polled 17 votes to date, but a 9+ average does seem to suggest something special. Basically, I suppose it's a case of tough luck if you missed it 'cos it's no longer available to view !! Aaaaaaaargh.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson respectively, the second of the Universal series, where it's again established by means of a written prologue that the famed detective is legendary and spans time. This helps to comfortably set things up here in the "present" era of the early 1940's.

In this offering, Holmes goes through a few different disguises (with Rathbone's very prominent features, is it likely that people really wouldn't recognize his true identity?) as he protects a physicist from the hands of the Nazis as well as from Holmes' greatest nemesis Professor Moriarty (now played by Lionel Atwill). The scientist has developed a bomb sight which will greatly aid in aerial bombardment, and he's promised his plans to the British. But Moriarty wants to get hold of it so he can sell them to the Nazis.

A good entry boosted a bit by the participation of the properly villainous Atwill now cast as Moriarty (though George Zucco was no slouch himself in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). It's always intriguing watching Holmes and his greatest enemy engaging in witty banter together ("the needle to the last, eh, Holmes?").
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I forsee many students now signing up for student exchange to Barcelona and being disappointed when they don't have quite such an exciting time.

The movie was enjoyable. It's of course always a pleasure to see Audrey Tatou.

However, I have a very strong issue with part of the movie. The lesbian roommate tells Xavier that women like to be physically dominated (which I take issue with) and shows him some sort of butt-grabbing move that's guaranteed to get a woman. Xavier then tries out the butt grab on a shy married friend - who starts out saying "no no" "I'm married, I'm married" but then somehow succumbs to the butt grab?? All of a sudden she's moaning "yes yes" and they're going at it on the benches in Parc Guell. I found this really really offensive. Furthermore it is very stereotyped. How often have we seen scenes where the woman says "no" but obviously doesn't mean it? No means no. Grabbing butts/physical domination isn't going to make it right. It just totally supported the stereotypical rape myths.

I wasn't even sure how to read the next scene where he gloats to the lesbian about how it worked and how next time he was just going to demand "suck it, slut" (or something like that). Did he really think forcing himself onto a woman with no respect for her feelings was the way to go?

This section really ruined the movie for me.
I saw this play on Showtime some years back in the comfort of my home and when the final note was struck, I wanted to jump off the sofa and give the production a standing ovation. As it was, I shed a tear that it was such a bunch of fantastic performances and songs. For my birthday, my kids bought me the VHS version as well as the Cd of the play with Len Cariou in the Sweeny Todd Role. 

I've shared the play with many...some finding the subject a bit sick, but none having anything but praise for the songs.

I've always loved the interplay in songs with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn as well as Hearn and Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin.

I must own the DVD.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a failure so complete as to make me angry.

All of the subtlety and structure of Reggio's early films is gone, leaving nothing but a hash of digitally smeared images whose sole purpose seems to be Whining About Bad Things Humans Do. Just how do Star Trek-like wormhole graphics, slo-mo colorized seascapes, mutiplicities of obviously fake computer icons, and shots of athletic competition that, incidentally, show that no one has ever been able to top (or even match) Leni Riefenstahl for filming bodies in motion, edited together with an overlay of video colorization that a 1980s "Dr. Who" producer would have rejected as "too cheesy," add up to a polemic against "civilized violence"? There is no intellectual, emotional, or visceral connection between these images as assembled and mutated by Reggio and way too many digital effects artistes, and the cautionary tale I assume he wanted to produce. With all of the "dramaturgical consultants" involved, no one seems to have pulled his head out the his own feeling of Saying Something Important and considered that they might all be failing to say something new.

Only people who watch too much television could make such a film and believe that it's meaningful; this is kindergarten Stan Brakhage, and ultimately gutless in its relentless obviousness. The only irony and tension evident here (unlike in "Koyaanisqatsi" where the relentless beauty and strangeness of time-altered ordinary images forced you to consider their meaning) was when the DVD I was watching jammed and skipped. This is MTV for the Noam Chomsky crowd, based on reflex rather than reflection and signifying nothing. Two stars for the music, which is in Glass's best pomo-Cesar Franck style and features some passionate cello from Yo-Yo Ma. (I hope for his sake that he didn't have to record his parts to a playback of the film; there are some things you shouldn't have to do even for a paycheck.)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like "Arrested Development" and yet they keep this show and "War at Home". I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy "Married with Children", but now it's just getting ridiculous. "The Loop" is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. "Family Guy" and "The Simpons" work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using "no-named" actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Those wishing to see film noir remakes, should not see this as as a remake, you will always be disappointed. Instead, enjoy a gripping performance from Dennis Quaid and visual imagery to commend. The colour drains from the film (literally, not metaphorically!)) as the plot gathers pace, and the dialogue is crisp and gritty. The opening dialogue is clever, and the viewer is carried along by a sharp screenplay and a real, original film noir feel,
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
So many great actors, so little worth watching. But with a script that misses so much of what made the book special, I don't hold it against anyone on screen. Though flawed, the book was one of Grisham's only that I truly liked, especially how it captured the flavor of a deep south small town, a slightly different world to a coastal urbanite such as myself. I also loved the matter-of-factness, naturalness of what occurs in the book. In the movie characters are given a "nobility" of personality that seemed so stilted. The villains and foils are flat and 1 dimensional. But as with so much of Joel Schumacher's work, genuineness and authenticity are conspicuously absent, and every point must be delivered via sledgehammer to the midsection. So preachy, stilted, and superficial about so horrendous a tragedy, I wish someone would do a remake and get the story a little more right.

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

negative
If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.

I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.

Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film.

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

negative