cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy  one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". 

The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: We'll never see this movie broadcast by HBO in the near future if at all. If anyone somehow comes across it in a video store just grab it before someone else does, because I doubt if it ever will be re-released again. 

An unbelievable and timely movie about the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and how the government agencies who's job it is to identify and stop terrorists from doing harm and damage to American citizens and American property completely fell down on the job and unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Bone chilling since we all know now that the terrorists who were apprehended at the end of the movie weren't going to be the end of our nightmare that resurfaced on September 11, 2001. 

The film brought out everything that went wrong back in 1992-93 that allowed that first tragedy at the WTC to happen. Still it took another eight years to realize that we should have learned from that first WTC attack to be more vigilant and ready to prevent the second and far more devastating assault on the World Trade Center to happen. I found this movie harder to watch after the events of 9/11 then the video of the attacks of 9/11 themselves. 

All I can say about this film is don't watch it alone. The very ending itself is so powerful as well as prophetic that it would leave you in a state of shock in knowing what we know today and possibly in need to have someone who's with you, but not watching the movie, to call for medical attention.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.

Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.

Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.

PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.

The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.

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

negative
Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.

In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past. 

The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.

The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me.

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

positive
The second in director Cohen's trilogy of Second World War comedies (the others being Till Death Do Us Part' and `Adolf Hitler - My Part In His Downfall') is a film version of the BBC's long running (and much loved) situation comedy. Like most transfers of television shows, this movie suffers from an absence of plot and is more a collection of sketches. Some of which work better than others for example the scene where a high ranking army officer floats down a river is a memorable, surreal moment.

The joy of this movie is it's representation of a past that probably never existed and an England which is defined by picturesque countryside and the chance it offers to see veteran scene-stealers such as John Le Mesurier given their biggest film roles. Arthur Lowe is superb as Captain Mainwaring, a bungler, who, when the chips are down, displays great courage and saves the day (the climax is probably the character's greatest moment).

Episodes of the television series are of course funnier but as an introduction to a British legend, you cannot find anything better.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.
A movie about a French girl who gets raped by street hoodlums. The rape scene itself is shot in all it's gory detail with all the male and female organs and their interactions clearly visible to the camera. In a fit of rage, the victim grabs her friend's (or was it brother ?) gun, shoots him and runs off with the weapon. She meets this prostitute who has just seen her pimp shot down, they team up, and make off towards Paris. A series of crazy, meaningless and wild killings follow, the girls seem to enjoy every murder more than the one before. One poor guy gets shot in the ****hole. There are good doses of sex thrown in between the numerous killings.

The movie is not the most violent I have seen, I would say Saving Private Ryan probably had more violence in it. If violence is what you are looking for, then there are lots of other movies out there. And if it's sex you are out for, then I would suggest one of those XXX ones.

I went to see the movie because of all the hype the media was giving it. The movie itself is no big deal, just a lot of violence and sex shot with something like a hand-held camera. I was surprised this movie had a 15 year age limit in Sweden, if 15 year-olds can watch this movie, they should be able to watch XXX movies too.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.
I don't like boxing, don't understand the attraction. I did like this movie. Positive portrayals of Latinos, with no drugs, sex or street violence. The plot actually showed stable, loving families. The fight sequences are violent, as is boxing, but not as over the top as Rocky films. Nothing wrong with attempting familiar themes with a different angle and ethnicity. It's a good rent.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Cruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.

A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, "biker" types with hot chicks.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as "the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Throw Momma hasn't dated at all, it's as funny now as when it was released. A genuinely eccentric comedy, that doesn't try too hard to be liked and is all the better for it, full of memorable laugh out loud lines. Even small characters are well written and beautifully played, like Billy Crystal's best friend's girlfriend, and a lovely cameo from Rob Reiner as Crystal's agent. A little bit insane and a lot funny.
What's an example of a movie review?

Well, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film.
A group of obnoxious teens go to a former funeral parlor for a Halloween party. They get trapped inside, and become possessed by demons that they have accidentally awakened. The possessed teens start killing the others off and seem to be led by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) who floats and talks in a really deep voice. The remaining teens that haven't been possessed yet are forced to fight off the demons and try to escape the house.

This is a pretty decent horror film with great special effects which include Linnea Quigley (who has a couple nude scenes as usual) gouging out a guy's eyeballs and pushing a tube of lipstick into her nipple. There's also a scene where a couple has sex in a coffin and a guy getting his tongue bitten out. This is a great film to watch with a bunch of friends late at night while eating some pizza. The terrible acting and atrocious dialog almost ruins it though. Overall, I would give it a 7 out of 10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.

I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:

·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.

·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).

·Outdoor panorama shots.

·Ormond talking through the keyhole.

·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.

·Fencing sequence

Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.

The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.

They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.

If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.

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

negative
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.

Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.

Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.

The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Am I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9/11 report.

Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.

I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

A man and his wife are not getting along because of the wife's jealousy and drinking problems. When the wife disappears, her sister begins a vigorous search involving the local police, state government, and a television crime show. What she finds out stuns the entire community. Good drama with lots of fine performances; based on a true story.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne  she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey  impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink  but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son."  just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately  "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up"  and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!"

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? "Nine ½ Weeks" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.

And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

In case you're wondering the buffoonish Loren C*****n of (Cryptozoology Inafame) is a living idiot and any information he's provided is to be tossed out with the trash. The guy simply is a news paper clipper.

As for the story line it was was a predictable train wreck, the actors were mechanical, the lighting was awful, and the props/clothing was cheap.

Bobcat Goldwait should have starred over the clowns in this film. I was physically ill after seeing ten minutes of it.

There are insane/retarded monkeys still in charge of films I see.

Dan
Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.

I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.

I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever "plot" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the "music" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.

If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.

After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.

The guidelines ask that you "focus on the content and context". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this "movie", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this "movie", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Reality before reality TV? Copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? A precursor to "Say Anything" that's grittier? I can't decide, but the soundtrack *is* the 80's--Blondie, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Devo, Lionel Richie, AND U2--I can't believe this, they would never throw all those genres together in a teen movie of today.

I remembered this like a teenager--mainly the sex parts and not a hint of the altruism. Why? I was a horny teenager in the 80's. Watching it again, I just can't describe how much I love that Rose, play by Kimberly Richardson, turns out to be the voice of "Pepper Ann" in the 90's, and she was almost 30 when she was in Last American Virgin, playing alongside 16 year-olds--fantastic! Complete cheese, reality, fantasy, and comedy--with a sincere cherry on top.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.
Unbelievable. "Philosophy". "Depth". "Genius". "Masterpiece". People must have seen another "Oldboy" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of "Kraapola" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.

The "depth" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once "great art". In short, yuck.

2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like 'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff shouldn't miss this one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carné's 1936-1946 movies are masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently watchable:"Thérèse Raquin" ,his best post-war work,and "les tricheurs" (the cheats).

There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to "les tricheurs":in "les enfants du paradis" "quai des brumes" or "le jour se lève",true love is thwarted by the villains. In "les tricheurs" true love does not exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very few grown-ups appear anyway.

During two hours,the characters do not stop playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care for each others ,it will be too late.

The cast is rather good ,Laurent Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andréa Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married Brigitte Bardot the same year as "les tricheurs")do not possess the ambiguity their parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable.

Oddly,"les tricheurs" was labeled "nouvelle vague"!When you know what the priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carné ,it's really a good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really disturbing.

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

positive
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.

In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.

A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.

What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This one is a very solid Randolph Scott Western. He plays Bat Masterson and goes to Liberal, Kansas to clean up the town. He becomes good friends with Robert Ryan who played a very, straight up leading man role. It was not until after this that Robert Ryan began playing much darker roles. In fact, in 1947 Randolph Scott made one other movie which was not a western and never made anything but westerns after that until he retired in 1962. This movie has good pacing and builds up to the climax steadily. I can't say any more as it would give away the plot. Be sure to see this one. 8/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. 

There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.