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

This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.
this is only the second time i have been moved enough to write a review. unfortunately, both times they have been for movies that can be described with several 4 lettered words that can be defined as faeces or excrement. the other movie of such calibre was masked and anonymous.

anywa, onto the review.. there are several key things wrong with this movie which i will describe below.

1) steven has lost the plot (i.e. in all his other movies, family / friend gets killed. steven gets angry. steven kills people. the end).

2) steven has run out of money (there was a good car chase scene at the start, but i think he blew his budget on that and couldn't afford a decent script writer or editor).

3) steven no longer appears to do his own action. instead, the (from memory) 2 fight scenes were shot neck down and from the back, so you couldn't actually see his face. most likely a stunt double. i'm guessing chuck norris.

in summary.. worst seagal movie ever. second worst movie i have seen in recent history, and i've seen a lot of bad movies.

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

negative
Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song "Bosom Buddies" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part "the right way" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

When I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Edward Dmytryk's "Crossfire" is a rare film coming from the Hollywood of the 1940s. This was groundbreaking territory for Mr. Dmytryk and the studio because of what the director and his adapter, John Paxton, decided to do with the novel, in which the film is based.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.

Richard Brooks novel was about the killing of a gay soldier. In the movie, the subject matter was turned around to prejudice against Jews, a theme that was taboo during that time in the American cinema. It's to Mr. Dmytryk's credit to have had the courage to get involved with this film project, at all.

The movie is an outstanding piece of film making because the way the director presents it. Obviously influenced by the film noir style, we are taken to the Washington of the post war. The opening scene about the brutal murder of Samuels shows such unusual cruelty being inflicted to a decent man, who we don't know yet, or why has been killed, but who didn't deserve to die in such horrible fashion.

The basis of the murder is prejudice, pure and simple. We realize how in the mind of an ignorant man, the mere fact of being successful and different, plays in the mind of the assassin. Samuels stands as the sacrificial lamb, the same way the gay soldier is the victim in the novel. The parallels are well drawn.

This film makes compelling viewing because of the brilliant star turn of Robert Ryan, as Montgomery. Mr. Ryan was an actor that always played interesting roles, but never so well as in "Crossfire". Also, there is a great appearance by Gloria Grahame, as Ginny, the prostitute with her heart in the right place.

The rest of the cast play as an ensemble. Robert Young, as the police detective in charge of the investigation plays is a decent man who has known prejudice first hand in his own family and speaks loudly against it. Robert Mitchum plays a cool Sgt. Keeley who is deeply touched by the crime when one of his men is accused of committing it. Sam Levene is excellent in his small role of Samuels.

This is a film to watch because of it probably the first to speak out loud against ignorance.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....

Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.

When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.

Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.

I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I get a kick out of the new Who fans who call it, excellent,Their entitled to that opinion but the new series isn't quite there yet, it's getting there. It's definitely good.

First the good things. The special effects are obviously better nearly 20 yrs later since the last episode of Doctor Who "Battlefield" was aired.

One thing the BBC has always liked is Doctor Who (except when they tried to cancel in the 70's and 80's). However, the anticipation and the pressure was great but I think the New series has passed the test it's good, it's still not excellent because it does have it's flaws. Some of the stories "Dalek" were very poor. I assume it was written in a couple of minutes by some idiot who never bothered to remake the Dalek character or never bothered to watch the old series.

"Aliens in London" was by far probably the best episode so far, it started a new storyline about Aliens which has lasted across several episodes including "Boomtown".

Now the other bad things, the companion, Rose, Billie Piper, isn't great. She's actually quite annoying but as is Dr. Who a young teeny bopper had to be eventually chosen and she got the part.

Christopher Eccleston is pretty respectable, he's started to catch his niche. He tried to play the character, straight then funny always missing the right punchline but he's taken it much more serious and it shows.

Continuity wise there still some issues that didn't get resolved well, Paul Mcgann was still the doctor before this but he didn't get put back.

Aside from that though the series overall is pretty good, I haven't missed an episode and it never gets boring, so I recommend any Doctor Who fan to check it out and see the new Doctor Who series.
Determine the sentiment:

I was completely bored with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so serious and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. Well the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;

why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making "horror" films or at least calling a movie a "horror" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) "acolytes, you take forever to say nothing."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

You know, people who make comedies so often forget it's really ok to be outrageous. Well, not this time. Unconditional Love has it all. Barry Manilow and a dwarf in a movie with Cathy Bates as the romantic lead...and it works. Not only does it work, it works very very well. In fact, I think it's perfect. I laughed so hard I think I hurt myself yet the main characters were all so human, so honest, and so very real. But isn't that where great comedies come from? Don't characters need real feelings, real emotions, and the ability to feel real pain? Well, they do in this movie. Unconditional Love is a movie you shouldn't miss, especially if you need a seriously good laugh, or you're at all curious about seeing the psychotic dwarf in the red raincoat.
Write a positive movie review.

i bought this in the budget department last week. i had halloween and halloween II already, and since i aim to collect every horror film ever, i chose this. after all, the 1st two were good.

this film is pretty intelligent to tell the truth. it seems to create the correct atmosphere, and has a nice "history of michael myers". it uses the old locations from the original, and the main character is the kid whom laurie strode babysat that fateful halloween in 1978...

the climax also is fairly satisfying. anyways, it is A LOT better than H20, which frankly, is absolute crap.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Every Saturday morning at 11 a.m. I watched Superstars. All the biggest events happened on this show at the time. Challenge, which aired Sunday mornings, was decent too, but all the big stuff happened on this show. Wrestlers would do all their interviews with Mean Gene on a platform next to the live crowd or talk on their own to the screen in front of a background that promoted them. The matches were usually squashes but sometimes you would see 2 mid carders square off in the main event. There were also interview shows that usually resulted in violence thus setting up a feud. These segments ranged from Pipers Pit, The Body Shop, The Flower Shop, The Snake Pit, The Brother Love Show, The Funeral Parlor, and The Barber Shop. I don't recall any titles changing hands on this show. That usually happened at pay per views and Saturday Nights Main Event.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This film has absolutely no redeeming features. It's not even worthy of being in the 'so bad it's good' category - it's simply bad. Badly acted, badly shot, badly written, badly directed, terrible sound recording and the whole thing is just incredibly amateur. Quite how this got a release is beyond me.

Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell the lead actress that if you're playing 'mad' that does not mean that you should constantly fiddle with your hair - in a film that was generally irritating, this was probably one of the most irritating things of all.

On the plus side, I think this is the only film ever to feature a Nazi carjacker ...
'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.

Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
So it might not be entirely historically accurate. And there is little or no real character development. But for Jake (son of Ridley) Scott's first attempt, it's well worth the ticket price.

Captain James MaCleane (Jonny Lee Miller looking as good as ever) may be a gentleman, but he hasn't got the money or the clothes to prove it. Plunkett (Robert Carlyle with all his clothes on) is an apothecary-turned-outlaw. The circumstances of their strange meeting involve a dead body, a ruby, and eventually a partnership as the Gentlemen Highwaymen. As the tag line says, "they rob the rich... and that's it." There isn't really much background, or even in-depth development, but the object seems to be to relieve the aristocracy of enough money and jewels to pay for the two Highwaymen's passage to America. One small problem: MaCleane falls in love. With the Chief Justice's ward, Rebecca (Liv Tyler). Who happens to also have caught the eye of the Thief Taker General.

The plot is original enough, the casting is excellent (especially Alan Cumming as the drag-queenish Lord Rochester, Carlyle and Miller--also together in "Trainspotting," they haven't lost their dynamic), the costuming is fantastic, the makeup is outrageous, and the music is hard-edged techno with a strangely classical undertone. Jake Scott has an eye for light and shadow, a good sense of balance between spectacle and plot, and he isn't squeamish about showing the more unpleasant side of 17th century London. And lucky for us, he likes close-ups of faces, especially eyes. Jonny Lee Miller's eyes. And Liv Tyler's, too, but hey, who is this movie about? Rebecca? No. Plunkett and MaCleane. But there's more to this movie than just pretty faces. At the risk of sounding cliche, it's a fast, furious, and sometimes frustrating ride with the most noble highwaymen since Robin Hood. Decadent, sleazy, and violent, Scott's debut film makes for an entertaining evening at the movies.

As MaCleane says, "I was terrific, and it was a bloody good laugh!"

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

positive
I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is possibility the worst and most disappointing film I have ever seen. I've spent four years at two universities and know that there must be a good film to be made about the experience. This isn't it. The "acting" is god awful and the plot non-existent.

Here are a few incidents from my one year in halls of residence.

1) A posh lad that unknowingly got off with a transvestite. 2) The best friend pairing of two girls - one with huge breasts and the other with the nickname "the brick". 3) A couple that shag too loudly. 4) The lad who gets all the girls 5) The lad from Northern Ireland who is very difficult to understand. 6) McDonalds in bed 7) Curry every night for a week 8) Student bashing, couple of my mates ended up in hospital 9) The discarded joint that started a fire. 10) The flood 11) The lad who wakes up on his floor to find that every item of furniture has be taken from his room.

And if I can come up with that list in 5 minutes and from real life, I'm sure a couple of script writers can do better, a lot better.

And for a film named after a Sleeper song, where is the Britpop soundtrack?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.

The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever! 

The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.

The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know? 

There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. "Teach me how to be likable", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly cliché) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.

btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: According to the budget information given on this web site Dark Harvest had an estimated budget of $130,000. Where this money was spent I'm not exactly sure. Let me see....costumes...no...location and sets...hmmm, think not....special f/x...NOT...acting lessons...ah, no. Dark Harvest tells the epic tale of a young man who inherits a family farm in the hills of West Virginia. His girlfriend talks him into taking their friends up there to check the place out. Once there our intrepid hero learns that his great grandfather used a unique method for getting his crops to grow and now it's revenge time. Killer scarecrows out for revenge!!! Ewww scary. Well no, not really. We all know there have been some terrific movies made with very little money but this is not one of them. This film contains pretty much some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. Terrible clichés with terrible delivery. All in all do not be fooled by the half way decent cover and avoid at all costs. I'd like to give the film makers at least a D- for trying but I'm afraid they didn't even do a good job with that. GRADE: F
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

What can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is about the discovery of a planet on the other side of the sun which shares the same orbit as earth and therefore has been undiscovered until a space probe on the far side of the sun photographs it. Of course two astronauts (Roy Thinnes & Ian Hendry) are sent to explore it but due to a malfunction they crash & find themselves back on earth only 3 weeks into their six week journey. Of course they're berated (at least Thinnes is, Hendry is gravely injured) and grilled and asked why they turned back on their mission but it's claimed that they didn't. Until Thinnes seems to notice a few very odd things about being back "home". This is excellent if somewhat talky at times, and the sets and feel aren't a far cry from "Thunderbirds" territory but will live actors for once. It's no big "Star Wars" type production but more quiet science fiction that one has to think about a bit. Well worth seeing and it's criminal that the DVD is out of print. 8 out of 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

"In the Mood for Love" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen.

Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment, and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike "Random Hearts," is about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love.

What's terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal, played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film has the guts to suggest that it might be best to simply accept your life as it is, and keep smiling anyway. As one who is more excited by the idea of taking charge of one's life and moving forward, I felt slapped in the face, but that's okay: I don't have to agree with a movie to love it and respect it. Great acting by Streep and Hurt, and everyone else really, and some wonderfully quirky scenes. A serious film. And take a hanky.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.

The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as "Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites" and "Odette, Where is thy sting?"

Only for Garbo fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Good show, really good acting, and the director takes us swimming through his storyline in an interesting, unpredictable way, especially since, essentially, it's two people in a room. It doesn't race through like many modern films, but doesn't drag, either. Bohl is flippant enough to believe her in the "now" of her character, which is still involved and not going back on her 'career' choices - so it is believable without the need for her to show us a deep, self-examination of her soul...Brundage has the delicate balance of weight, innocence, meekness, and class to pull off 'Buddy' very well. A bit grainy on the film quality, but it fits the tone of the story. Could use a little polishing on the hair and makeup end of things, but definitely worth watching.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I swear if I did ever tried cocaine I'd be able to relate to this film perfectly. Its pace, as well as the dialog, churns out at speeds that some viewers might need to stop and relax their heads.

There are great little elements that pop up through out the film, like how Rob Lowe's character seems to always be loosing a shoe, or how some characters keep running spirals around his zigzagged path. The story was put together extremely well and the direction seems flawless.

The movie reeks of clumsy and cuteness. This is one I think most could enjoy. A few laugh-out-loud-even-if-you-are-alone moments ensure that I'll certainly be watching this again.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.

The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.

It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.

I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side.

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

positive
When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors/actresses are from his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse? I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad you did.

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

positive
Look, this movie is obscure, brilliant, and a classic that should sought out by any means necessary. I suppose the powers that be have decided that it will forever be relegated towards the bargin bin; nevertheless, we could only pray for the chance to see this one on DVD. I would say that it even beats the great Phatasm. If you like a dark movie, with plenty of spooky imagery, look for this one and see how an 80s horror movie is suppose to be.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I've seen this movie at least 8 times, and I still laugh every time. The movie is about how an intelligent and motivated man, against all odds, can cheat the entire over-self-confident system.

This movie is for all people, who like a funny movie.

The action and comedy is well mixed into a brilliant film, that I hope to see on DVD soon.


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

positive
To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).

The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.

The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.
"Shuttle" is an indie thriller about four young adults who get a ride late one night on a shuttle bus from the airport to find out that the driver is a sadistic psychopath.

Although some of the sequences of scares and it's unconventionally interesting plot work, some aspects just don't. The bad dialogue and unlikeable characters gives a good reason to not care for them. But, often the suspense works and asks you the question of "What would you do?" and usually what you WOULD do isn't what these idiots on the shuttle do. 

If you're expecting a mindless, bloody horror film, you'll be mistaken. This is a film that causes you to use your mind, but, unfortunately, not until the end.

Four out of ten.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is an excellent, little known movie. Tom Selleck does an outstanding job of acting in this movie, with the Japanese 'Clint Eastwood'. I'd love to see if this movie has come out on DVD yet, there are some spots that clearly have been cut. Hiroku (Tom's love interest) has clearly had some parts chopped. It would be interesting to see more of Japan in the film. The baseball sequences are far and away the most realistic of any baseball movie, I'm quite sure most of the actors were current or former baseball players. I love loading the tape of this movie at least once a year. Best scenes involve the lack of hat tipping after Tom gets beaned in the big game, and an intensely sensual scene of Tom having a hot bath with Hiroku. Dennis Haysbert also does a great job, it's good to see he's finally getting some recognition, not just in baseball movies(he was also in Major League).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this movie on it's opening night, and enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been sitting by my father. My father saw the original (unfortunately, I have not seen it yet) and kept talking through the whole thing. He kept saying that the movie sucked, and that it was stupid. The thing is, he didn't understand that the creators were slightly making fun of the horror genre with the film. In every horror movie, there is always a certain character depicted. If they weren't in the movie, well, you might not really like it too much. The trademark characters are:

"The Lead Character": Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) "The Lead Character's Boyfriend": Wade (Jared Padalecki) "The Lead Character's Sibling/(Soon-To-Be)Reformed Jerk": Nick (Chad Michael Murray) "The Annoying Sluttish Character": Paige (Paris Hilton) "Characters Who Are Just Around To Look Pretty": Dalton (Jon Abrahams) & Blake (Robert Ri'chard)

With those characters, it makes it slightly predictable who will die and who will live. Obviously, you know who will with what I just typed. The movie may be predictable (in fact, I had a pretty good idea who would die just by watching the trailer), but it was still enjoyable. It may seem stupid (why is there a sugar mill in the middle of a deserted camp-site that wasn't there in the beginning?) at times, but it is very easy to watch. The comedy and gore were the perfect amount for weak-stomached movie-goers it does get gory, don't get me wrong, (less than "Final Destination 2) but it works very well. So in conclusion, this movie wasn't as hot as the fire the set went up in, but the temperature could still burn the "Wax".
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
1st watched 10/29/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-John Stephenson): Mildly entertaining story of a group of five kids who are forced to live with their eccentric uncle while their father and mother fight & work in World War I as England entered the war. They are told not to go in the greenhouse of the uncle's mansion, which of course they do over and over, and they discover a sand fairy who them daily wishes that only last until the sun goes down. This is the "IT" referred to in the title, created by the Jim Henson group and voiced by Eddie Izzard. The problem is their wishes usually bring about other problems that they are supposed to learn from. This part of the movie is not done very well because it's obvious the children, primarily the Freddie Highmore character, do not learn from them but instead keep going back to "it" to solve their next big problem. "IT" is not nearly as funny as it could have been with the comedian Eddie Izzard really not given much opportunity to improvise and Kenneth Branagh is wasted as the eccentric uncle, although he is the best character. The children are fine as far as their acting abilities but the story probably would have been much better going into the fantasy realm but they did have a human story to tell as well, which probably caused the confusion with the filmmakers. So, all in all, this was an OK film but could have been much better.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 1st watched 3/17/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Mario Pinzauti): Silly, sex-filled master & slave having too many intimate relations movie. This movie seemed to care more about the sex than the story and kind of worked the story around the sex. Laughable dubbing of the original Italian language in the version I watched with ridiculous ending where the attempt is made to give an anti-slave statement(or should I say one line). What a waste of time for everyone who watches this trash.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was a fan of the AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON movie and so was curious whether a 16-year later sequel could be done with French language and local re-cast major, supporting, and minor characters. Tonight I watched the "edited for FOX Network" version that was some sort of curious hybrid of several hyperactive sequels. The screenwriters and directors pay homage to certain of the key plot concepts: Tourist gets wolf bite, full moon comes out, boy meets girl, boy becomes beast, boy dies heroic death after help from ghost victim. For me, the oddest aspect of this "formula" teen horror special effect-ride was the casting of the school teacher-love interest of the TV comedy "ED" as one of the werewolf's clueless victims who is more or less totally unsympathetic in the scripted lines they handed her. I haven't seen another horror-flick that this movie is "sequelling" (a vampire fighting flick titled BLADE), but I guess that parts of its plotline must explain how villain werewolves (they're spoofish) are threatening the "good" werewolf pair during a long part of the movie. There is also a final conflict in a Paris subway train, a la SPEED. This 1997 studio product is an odd hybrid of a film since considerable technical effects are shown for scary purposes but the authentic terrors of the original have been completely undermined, in my opinion. Such an odd re-write of the werewolf legend and "movie-mythology" !?! My suggestion to those considering this at the video store -- go for a classic "top of the line" Thriller instead : Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO!
I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...

English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...

When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.

The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie features some of the best ensemble work I've seen in film or on stage. The actors play off each other with a skill and vivacity that in no way can be achieved through editing.

"Love Jones" a good story, period. But it is also an excellent portrayal of the urban, middle-income, twenty-something African-American set that is not often seen.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive