cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight.

The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently: shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk.

One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb, sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly, so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.

I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.

For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.

Rating: 2 out of ten

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and "mise-en-scene" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema.
What's an example of a movie review?

What can you say about a movie whose funniest episode sees a fat man wrestling a garden hose? The acting, particularly that of lead man Jerry O'Connel, is embarrassing. The dialogue is so contrived and unfunny it makes you cringe. The controlling idea is actually not a bad one for this genre (infantile teen comedy), but, somehow, the director manages to make the least of it. I rate it a 2 out of 10.
This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.

The "rock band" on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.

Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.

*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!

The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory. 

Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep "BONNNNG" of a church bell, but the "ding" of a bell from a boxing match!

This is an absolute hoot to watch.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I found this one to be more chaotic than the average Stooges short (as strange as that may sound). There were several funny bits, especially the running gags ("Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!", the glass door breaking, the Stooges running into the supply room and coming back out with... well, you know), but also quite of bit of it was taken up with things that just didn't make any sense to me. I have to assume that these were generally take-offs of scenes from the film "Men In White", but since I don't know much about that movie I can't say for sure. Maybe if someone could explain these I'd appreciate this short more.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was "The ultimate frontal lobotomy". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said "My son will probably love it." and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the "corck screw" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red "button" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the "weapon" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this "gem" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.

In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals. 

One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Wow. At first I thought who writes these things! How hard is that choice between a man who offers you and your children wealth, respectability and security as opposed to a husband who offers you only oppression, abuse, degradation and poverty. However our choices are not always as clear cut cut as one would think. Indeed the wealthy gentleman was all a woman could aspire to and yet... the pull of her husband, her sexual desire for him was almost overwhelming. What to do, what to do?? As a viewer you became as confused and misdirected as she was. Anyway what I really came on this site to gush about was my admiration of the voice of the Engish, I thought, although it is actually the voice of an Irish singer in the film. Looking him up I find he is Glen Hansard, whom I had never heard of before that day. What a find. I am so grateful. Wow, what a voice! What a day! Thank you BIFF!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a poor, poor movie. Full of clichés, unrealistic moments: punching the air in celebration after putting a fire out, never mind that someone's lost their home and possessions!!, announcing a pregnancy in a bar along with all your mates before telling you in private first, walking on the roof of a burning building for no apparent reason, the stereotypical funerals and strained relationships, the very dodgy, cheesy music at the end, the unrealistic treatment of the girl who was rescued from her apartment, the very unrealistic explosion from that same apartment!! Did they have a couple of oxygen tanks in the attic or something!!? Anyone with an ounce of wit can see that this movie was a joke. It's a pity, because firefighters do an awesome job, and they deserve to have a good movie made about what they do, but not at the expense of common sense.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella. 

For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning. 

I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.

And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).
Determine the sentiment:

..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience. 

Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).

They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..

Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it. 

Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on. 

The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie. 

You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fiancée is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it. 

If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.

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

negative
My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.

Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.

The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.

The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.

All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I remember watching this for the first time in the 80's as a teen. Man, I've read the reviews on this trash and I find myself astonished by the voting. This movie does not deserve four stars!!! This movie is NOT better than Topgun. Topgun has its own problems; don't get me wrong. This movie should be banned just for its own stupidity. So many stereotypes, so many loop holes, so MUCH poor dialog. I cannot think of one redeeming quality of this vomit. This is not action/adventure. This is a bad joke on film. Kinda like watching Plan 9 with stock F-16 footage. This movie not only defies logic and common sense within the context of a military setting, it sends a disturbing message. The military is not going to save your dad from the imminent evil of the middle east b*****ds. So go out there and hijack a multi-million dollar weapon and blast him out of the sinister clutches of the backwards, Anti-American Arabs. Cuz you can't reason with those animals. This is a Bruckheimer flick without a budget. Bland direction, weak acting, lame music, idiotic plot, equals...Iron Eagle.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one.
The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.

I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.
Oh my god, this movie is incredible, it's the baddest movie ever and I know what I am talking about! I am a scary movies fan!

The story is totally silly, a group of adults decide to make a party and a silly guy with an awful mask comes and kills everybody... the dialogs are a kind of parody, worst, they're just talking about sex with a so bad accent. The end is (oh!!!!!!) discover by yourself! you will be really really surprised... (not possible! yes it is!) and surprise the movie is just 58minutes. (not possible (bis) yes it is!) Worst than House IV and Howling V.

To put it in a nutshell, forget it forever!!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Good animation, nice character design, and a light-hearted story make Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu enjoyable to watch.

After my first viewing, I thought that this anime was pretty good, but but was much better on for a second watch.

This is because it is done out of chronological order, and once you re watch it in correct order you notice connections you didn't see before. (OR it may be that you see a second meaning to some events you didn't notice before) You may want to read the original novels (not manga) by Tanigawa Nagaru before/after seeing this. The anime is very good at visualizing every detail in the stories it shows.

However, there are some short stories from the book that are not animated, but are referenced to.(bamboo w/ wishes attached shown in episode 14) Overall, this anime is actually very good once after brief analyzation of the plot (reading the book improves upon it as well). It is a nice break from the shounen-jump anime that seem to be taking over.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and oo7/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith quite impressive.
Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York. 

These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level. 

Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister. 

Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.

The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.

First of all the term "plot" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.

The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: "That's damn unrealistic". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.

The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.

Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an "Art" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your "child".

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

negative
Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe.

This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them Faith has died under tragic circumstances.

Phoebe can't forget Faith. That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal, where Faith encountered her untimely death.

In Paris, Phoebe hooks up with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend. Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced in Europe and what happened in her final days.

The best thing in "The Invisible Circus" are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the girls.

The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance. Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing wonders for him.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is more of the same thing that made this cartoon popular.....but who's complaining? It's always fun to see the poor coyote try various contraptions to get the Road Runner, and then get pulverized by every one of those inventions.

The underground cave chase was different from the normal fare and was clever. It gave us an aerial view of the chase in a maze-like structure. I didn't say it was hilarious; just different from the normal above-ground antics.

This one, along with some other Road Runner shorts, are featured on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 and the transfers of them are spectacular. The colors are magnificent.
If you're a fan of Jackass, Viva La Bam or the CKY videos, then you already know what you're in for. But this is one of those rare happenings when a sequel is better than the original! And man does this movie pack a mean low blow. But i mean that in a good way. It's the same type of death-defying, gut-wrenching insanity that we have all come to know and love and expect from Bam, Knoxville and Co. But this time with even more laughs than ever before! With Johnny Knoxville's insane tolerance for pain, Bam Margera's love for harassing his friends/family and Steve-O's gross-out factor, you have one hell of a funny film. The bar for the stunts, skits and general mayhem of the Jackass crew has been raised. Jackass 3? Doubtful, because it's nearly impossible to improve on perfection.

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

positive
A group of young travelers that just ran out of gas go into a weird wax museum called "Saluesen's Lost Oasis" owned by a strange man named Slausen (Chuck Conners) as the dummies are controlled by some mysterious force and a madman with special powers wants them dead.

One of the most under-appreciated horror movies of the late 70's! This Charles Band (producer of "Re-Animator")production has became one of the scariest and most unique low budget horror productions of it's day combining some psychological themes along without having to result some gore like the usual slasher movie. The movie keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats with tension and some scares, the movie has became a cult diamond in the rough for the genre since then and this is well worth watching.

Also recommended: "Pin", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( 1974)", "The Hills have Eyes ( 1977)", "Maniac ( 1980)", "Magic" ( 1978), "Dolls", "May", "Just Before Dawn", "House of 1000 Corpses", "The Devil's Rejects", "Sleepaway Camp", "Mother's Day", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday The 13th", "Halloween 1 & 2", "Puppet Master", "House of Wax ( 1953 and 2005)", "Jeepers Creepers", "High Tension", "Evil Dead II", "From Dusk Till Dawn", "Waxwork", "Nothing But Trouble" and "Psycho ( 1960)".

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.

Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.

Hitch's pallet here is the "game play" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.

For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.

Back to the movie...

Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed.
....is the boob in the pie. Every thing else in it is an abortion, a malformed failure of a film. At least you can SEE and HEAR what goes on in an Ed Wood movie (usually). High schools drama clubs do better than this on a routine basis. Once you've you've seen the breast pie bit, you can turn it off and go watch "Hannibal".
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have seen over 2000 Studio-Era sound films-- including lots of Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Shirley Jones, and Deanna Durbin's own Universal features-- plus a decent amount of live and studio-recorded musical comedy and opera. And I assure you, no one tasked with singing in front of a camera and microphone, or maybe anywhere ever, HAS EVER TOUCHED DURBIN'S SOLO here...mono soundtrack and crap 1930s microphones and all. The kid from Canada sings this bit from "Il Bacio" like she lived and wrote it herself and then happened to show up for a retrospective in Italy late in her career, not like a child who learned it from her music teacher.

If you skip this Extra on the DVD-- or skip ahead to the Garland solo-- you are just depriving yourself, since this cheap MGM teaser just happened to capture one of the greatest performances of the 20c.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a very "right on case" movie that delivers everything almost right in your face. I'm a Christian and liked the film in one way. It had some average acting from the main person, and it was a low budget as you clearly can see. It can be a bit long-winded, but the film has some quite nice cars that rescues it from a lower rating from me. As a Christian film it was quite good, but maybe a bit right-on in the message. The film works best on a big screen. *SPOILERS* The fighting scene with the two brothers can remind you of the fighting scene between the two brothers in the Christian thriller "Mercy Streets" starring Eric Roberts.*End of Spoiler* I give it a 7/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There's a brand new killer on the loose, and he's doing God's work. Yeah right! This killer makes Jason Voorhes look like a chump, and Freddy Krueger look like a rag doll against this dude. He is Jacob Goodnight(WWE's Glen "KANE" Jacobs), a 7' monster who wields a Axe, and a hook and chain. Those weapons are nothing to him his real finisher is ripping out eyeballs from the victims sockets. That is totally methodical! When the encounter happened 4 years earlier, Jacob killed a rookie cop and maimed the veteran after putting a bullet in his head. How on Earth did Goodnight survive after 4 years? Now he's in the condemned hotel called Blackwell. And this hotel got a lot of stories to tell. I thought this movie was haunting as well as interesting. I liked the part where Goodnight checked out one of the girl's tattoo on her back. And Goodnight himself is really deranged thanks to his maniacal mother. If you think Friday the 13th was something, you better think again. This movie will leave you on the edge of you seat. And I think the eyeball rip was bone-chilling. This movie proves it point,and it wasn't a waste of my time. I enjoyed it. The title don't lie! Rating 2.5 out of 5 stars!

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

positive
Terror in the Jungle is a real find. If you saw it, you're one of the few lucky ones. It's hilarious!

The story is about an airplane crashing in the middle of the south american jungle. The crash scene has to be seen to be believed. Everyone dies in the crash or they're subsequently eaten alive by crocodiles. Only a young blonde boy survives. A nearby tribes brings the kid to their village and they (all males) venerate him because of his golden hair! I kid you NOT! At the end, there's a lot of wrestling between the natives and the man on the search for any survivors of the downed airplane. All the while, the kid sits on a throne and his blond hair is surrounded by a golden halo and he cries nonstop!! It's a hoot!!!

Very obscure and contains very questionable subtexts. A must if you're into obscure, it's-so-bad-it's-good movies.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This movie was fun, if all over the board.

It essentially follows the comedic romp of two grave-robbers in 19th century England, who move from conventional body snatching to trafficking in vampires, zombies and dead Roswell aliens. (I have no idea what the Roswell alien was doing in there, and neither did the producers, I think.) 

But was it funny? You bet. Even Ron Perlman, who is often the kiss of Direct to DVD Death was pretty good in this one as a priest who turns out to be the ringleader of a rival gang of body-snatchers.

A real joy to watch this hilarious little film, and a good example of what you can do when you don't have larger than life egos on either side of the camera.
Determine the sentiment:

This is a film that left me breathless........ wanting to learn more of the Afghan history and traditions. With todays "evil doer" mantra clouding reality, it was inspirational to experience the beauty of the people and their beliefs.

Casting was impeccable, the scenery simply marvelous. The acting was first rate and the fact that the Academy overlooked this (except it's music) is unforgivable.

The script is wonderful and such and emotional journey. Provoking an "ugly cry" from this watcher.

A film worth watching a second and third time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Strangeland is a terrible horror/technological thriller. Dee Snider plays Carleton Hendricks, a disgusting computer freak who prays on young girls through the chat rooms. His ridiculous philosophies on pain and suffering are both misguided and totally unfounded. There is no tie to reality with the ideas that are presented in this film, it is more like Dee Snider sat down and tried to think up the weirdest stuff possible to impress horror fans and maybe some of his old fans, but the end result is just awful.

Unfortunately for me, as a horror fan, the cover of this movie looks very good and it immediately caught my interest, which is the main reason that I was tricked into watching it. I assure you that this is not a quality horror movie. It is a disturbing yet boring attempt to suggest what might go on in the minds of people who treat themselves the way the Carleton Hendricks did in this film. The sad part is that NO one does this stuff to themselves. Marilyn freakin' Manson doesn't even go that far, and the fact that he had a song on the soundtrack makes it clear that the film wasn't meant to poke fun at his type of music (that would be a stab at Snider himself), it is more like Dee Snider was trying to raise himself from the career-dead and present himself as a sick-minded individual once more. Dee, it seems that the time has come to let it all die...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said "Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.

Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.
What's an example of a movie review?

Acting 10, Script 1. "Hurlyburly" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word "ain't."

Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.

In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.
What's an example of a movie review?

MINOR SPOILERS

Misunderstood classic remains one of Henson's finest and most personal films. It may seem funny to call a movie as beloved as this one 'misunderstood,' but people do seem to remember this one mostly for Jerry Juhl's snappy screenplay and Paul Williams's knockout songs. Now while these things are admittedly great, as is the movie's formal playfulness (screenplay-within-the-screenplay, film break, etc.), what distinguishes 'The Muppet Movie' from the other Muppet films is the serious, wistful thread that runs through the picture. It's a road movie, all right, but like most road movies, the pleasure is in the getting there, and the achievement of the characters' goals is tempered by uncertainty, and by the knowledge that they can never really go back again. Throughout the film, we are shown the down side of show business, even before the Muppets have 'made it': Piggy abandons Kermit without a second thought at a phone call from her agent, Gonzo expresses the loneliness and regret of a performer's life on the road in his haunting 'I'm Going to Go Back There Someday,' and, worst of all, Kermit is continually tortured and tested by Doc Hopper, who wants him to commercialize his art for the unholiest of purposes. (One can only wonder what Henson would have made of his family's management of the company after his death.) Kermit himself agonizes over his choices in the desert conversation scene, and the final 'Magic Store' number questions whether it's all been worth it, before concluding that it probably doesn't matter either way. All this is punctuated with the expected Muppet chaos and satire and deliciously awful jokes, and of course the serious stuff wouldn't work if it weren't. But 'The Muppet Movie' isn't just another jokefest, as the rest of the diminishing-return Muppet films would become. No, it's a lovely, gentle metaphor about the relationship between art and entertainment and business, and it's every bit as effective today as it was 25 years ago. 9.5 out of 10.