cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.

First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.

Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.

In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.

I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.

The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.

Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.

Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.
Determine the sentiment:

It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.

Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.

By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Meatballs" is an ode to summer camp. Those of us who got to go to camp will see many of the scenes as we remember or wish they could have been.

Bill Murray plays senior boys counselor Tripper Harrison, who really runs the camp. He reminds us of the funny cool staff member who everyone loves. Young campers gravitate toward him and if he speaks to you, you feel like you are family. This is one of Murray's best roles. He drives the film with his one liners and ad-libs.

Chris Makepeace plays Rudy, the loner camper who is taken under Tripper's wing and breaks out of his shell.

The rest of the campers and staff in the film were excellent as well.

The overall theme of the movie is the underdog overcoming obstacles to finally win. From Rudy to Spaz to the Camp and even to Tripper himself, the underdogs of the film are the stars. The movie has heart.

The film is fun and funny without being cruel or oversexed as some teen movies are today. The cast look and act like real people.

The comedy and heart draw you in to the point that at the end, just like at camp, you are sad to leave.

In my summer camp experience we had underwear run up flag poles, mystery meat, trying to sneak a peek into the girls cabin, the lunatic-with-the hook stories around the camp fire, and moving sleeping people out of their cabins and putting them elsewhere. But we also had a dedicated camp staff guiding us to be the best we could be.

My favorite scene is the CIT overnight when they are canoeing across the lake singing a goofy song. The one line that cracks me up every time is when Tripper is announcing light outs the evening before Parent's Day and he ends "Tomorrow is parents day, and you must look rested or Morty will be sent to the state penitentiary."
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It's great to hear the 3 or so comments, that point out what 'Footballers Wives' signifies for women. The title alone, washes away any supposed equality women have in the media industry or society, reducing them to two dimensional cartoon caricatures of how men think women should behave . It is a post modern moronic farce. It might as well be called, 'Footballers Wifey who stays at home and knows her place'.

On one hand, it could actually be some sort of parody on the U.K.'s, gutter trash press representation of celebrities and the role they have in maintaining a patriarchal society. So women can undermine stereotypes by acting like those stereotypes and own the image that has been created for them by mens desire. Nah, that would be to ironic and clever. I also sound like I should be praising it.

Zoe Lucker is simply too camp and over the top to be taken seriously. Just like an even cheaper Cruella De Ville. She just needs some maniacal, condescending, yet at the same time, self appraising laugh to show off her true acting range. Oh she does? Right. Anyway, it just about sums up whom this is aimed at. Either 'clever clever' journo's, who think its an up-roaring send-up of vaudevillian proportions, or people who think its 'real'. "Finest actors"? OMG!! Stop watching this afterbirth of a pantomime and get a life.

Its utterly sexist and is of such low quality, that maybe those who enjoy it think they are "in" on the "joke". Do the actors really care or understand what they are communicating? Its so demeaning to women and men. They are not all self centred, selfish, football loving materialistic jerks, who think women are nothing but another trophy to be put on display for the public. It's so humiliating. I am sure Ms Lucker would easily stand up to them in her "real" life, and twist them round her finger as so easily done in 'Footballers Wives' .

But of course, its doesn't really matter. I mean its only a T.V. programme after all. So please let it stay axed. It's dreadful and will only be looked back on in the same disbelief that 'Prisoner Cell Block H' was so fondly remembered for.

How did it come to exist? It sure ain't subtle or complex. It could only come from the same mind set who read FHM magazine, and think its "alright" to look at soft-porn, and "do" as many women who bow to their "will" and chant patriotic and racist comments whenever "their" football team losses/wins. It's totally crass.
Viewed this the other night on cable on-demand and thought, "this is the type of movie that might have starred Alec Guiness and Glynis Johns if it had been made in the late 50's". A farce in the English tradition. Alfred Molina and Brenda Blethyn are very sweet and sincere in their portrayals. Naomi Watts simply sizzles in a ditzy Jayne Mansfield-ish (if she could have acted) way. Rest of the cast have some great turns and bits. The Welsh landscape is delightful. An absurd premise, indeed and not at all believable, but that doesn't get in the way of enjoyment. Not a GREAT movie, mind you, but a truly fun watch. And Walken is at his wacky best. A joy to behold!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A clever and bizarre angle to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.

This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.

First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.

Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.

As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.

I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.

Peace.

Gary
This movie I watched back in 1981 when it came out. Although I missed the first part of the movie what I did see was great. this movie is hard to find but if found you must see. The acting is great. very believable sad movie. If I ever find me a copy I definitely will buy me a copy to treasure.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular. 

Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing. 

As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"! 

3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe
Determine the sentiment:

If you love the book, as I do, stop watching the video after Jean and Joe meet in Australia. Up to that point it is a fairly faithful rendition of the book, and the visuals are great. 10 out of 10 to that point and I've enjoyed it many times. After that, the story is seriously rearranged and revised in ways that really destroy the key part of the book, i.e., how Jean creates a town like Alice (Springs). In the early part, the major change is to make Strachan a 40-something bachelor instead of a seventy-year old widower. This rather skews this love story, especially when there are also small changes that contribute to making him more selfish and avaricious, such as: in the book, he intimates to Joe at the ship that he might find more than a letter waiting for him in Australia, but in the video he gives Joe no clue about Jean's whereabouts or intentions. The last hour of the 5-hour video scrunches and mangles the last third of the book. I see no reason why they threw in a fight between Joe and Jean -- it is quite out of character and seems to be just an Aussie dig at Pommies for telling them what to do. Then they bring on Strachan for the wedding (instead of some three years later) -- and have him read the toast!! -- very strange, especially in the context of the relationship between Jean and Noel as cast in the video. The whole wedding scene is the invention of the screenwriters. These abominations take up time in the last hour, which was already not long enough to do justice to the fascinating story of how Jean recreates Willstown as a place where she and Joe can both be happy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an "artsy film" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me!

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

negative
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen; it makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look wonderful. The acting is wooden, the plot silly and the SFX non-existent. The only good thing about it is the fact that it is not a long film. The scenery is sometimes quite pretty, assuming you like trees, if that helps any!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Jack Palance,(John Witting), was usually a bad guy in most of his films and in this film, he showed his great acting talents above and beyond my expectations. John Witting unexpectedly returns to his son's farm after years and years of separation. Christopher Walken,(Jacob), has a hard time trying to accept his father's appearance after he spent the night in the family barn. Jacob's son and younger daughter greet their new grandpa and accept him just as he is, a very old man, at the end of his ropes. Glenn Close,(Sarah Witting), delves into the character of John Witting and starts to bring out the truth about what happened to him during his years of absence from the family. This is a very warm and loving down to earth film about real events that happen in most families for generations to come and go.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This Movie as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid

The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said "A5zo Al Shai6an". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends "kiss me" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie
What's an example of a movie review?

From the epicenter of the cultural globe, four working class teenagers attempted to change the world through music and fashion. It was the final attempt to do so last century, and they failed. Before the dust had cleared, band manager and SEX shop proprietor Malcolm McLaren spent the money The Sex Pistols had earned to make a "mockumentary" about his own role in their success. The film was called The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle (take the hint) and consists of very little footage of The Sex Pistols actually playing music, and quite a lot of footage of McLaren effectively calling the audience idiots.

Cod-surrealist nonsense in which guitarist Steve Jones is a detective on McLaren's tail, soon dissolves so he and drummer Paul Cook can jet off to Rio and spend time with "great train robber" Ronnie Biggs. Ready yourself for the spectacle of three very unappealing men dancing naked to a hideous irony-free version of "Belsen was a Gas" (a song about killing Jews for gold in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp), and another song sung in Ronnie's tone deaf whine which includes the lyrics "God save Myra Hindley, God save Ian Brady" (lyrics that Johnny Rotten would have considered distasteful). The Sid Vicious scenes are few and idiotic. Jumping out of bed in a thong with a swastika over the testicles to sing some bad boy biker song from the '50s. Playing into to the "Punk's a joke" theme of the movie, in an attempt to turn Sid into James Dean. I'm surprised McLaren doesn't take credit for Siddy's death too. The redeeming scenes are those of Sid in Paris and the infamous performance of My Way. The punk rock zeitgeist right there. Mocking an adoring audience before shooting them all. No need for an entire film, just watch that clip on YouTube.

From Julien Temple's far superior (and more enjoyable) 2001 documentary followup, The Filth and the Fury, we were given a more balanced/honest view of what transpired in '78. But there were also a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen in Swindle (as Fury was basically a reediting of the same material). One was an animated Sid complete with Sid's voice acting; "You f*cken betta wat'ch out, alright, or I'll slice you open" - a still of which appeared on the cover of the Something Else 7 inch - a snippet was shown in Fury, but I don't know what context that originally appeared. Was it in original prints, but removed after Sid's death? Was there more? Fury also shed light on the film Who Killed Bambi, which would have been the mock Hard Day's Night movie McLaren was originally intending to make. It starred Sting(!) as a member of a gay New Romantics group, and looked a damn sight more entertaining than Swindle.

Sod Swindle, t'is a swindle. If you must, rent The Filth and The Fury and revel in music's failure as a world changing polemic.
Determine the sentiment:

In these modern times (as subject known quite well to the director of the short film that this German count is going to talk about), politically correct films are the "leitmotiv" of the modern young filmmakers' projects. "Shoulder Arms" directed by Herr Charlie Chaplin during WWI (the film was released only a few weeks before the armistice) is an obvious example of why the early cinema pioneers were a very bold people, certainly! To direct a humorous film inspired in the terrible, bloody First World War was a complicated matter that only few directors with those dangerous and daring ideas could be allowed to do to venture upon such delicate enterprise and with success was reserved only to geniuses.

As this German count said, "Shoulder Arms" was made during WWI, that time in where definitely the whole world lost its innocence (fortunately not the German fat heiresses of this aristocrat) and it is a hilarious, inventive social satire about that and any war. The film it is full of great gags and entertaining film continuity for a story in where that tramp will live though risky and courageous adventures in the front whether a hero for the allies or not.

To mock the war trenches, the unhealthiness, the frontal attacks and the Germans (how you dare!!... by the way, there are a lot of inaccuracies in the film  the German soldiers by that time had moustaches and longer beards not to mention that the Kaiser lacks many medals in his uniform) in an elegant, funny and delicate way it is even today a film miracle impossible of being surpassed. Keeping in mind those terrible wartime circumstances, the difficult task is only possible thanks to a lot of creativity and talent. Obviously Herr Charlie Chaplin had very much of it.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must go back to the Schloss trenches.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.

That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....

The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.

Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning. 

Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.
In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.

That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.

Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.
This movie actually almost made me cry.

For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.

The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.

To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.

This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of "gypsies" who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the "final girl" to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.

The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Although I think the reviewers who hated this movie have encapsulated exactly what it does wrong (everything!), I had to add my two cents. If you'd like a long version of how terrible this movie is, please read the review by coinlightning.

Here's the short version: shameless use of the actors' NAMES to propel the plot as opposed to using their talent (no one brought their "A game" to this), blatant commercialism (I guess Pepsi can afford to stick an advertisement - or 40 - into a movie now), and a plot (???) that was so convoluted with "rock star" clichés that it was totally ridiculous.

Let me put it to you this way . . . I was thinking of 'Wayne's World' the whole time I was watching this movie, but I wasn't laughing! Anytime you try to throw in Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) to help your movie plot along you've got SERIOUS problems.

PLEASE, warn your friends and family - this movie sucks.

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

negative
This show is my absolute favorite. This show is intelligent, entertaining and always full of surprises. Lauren Graham is perfect as Lorelai Gilmore, a single mother who is Rory's best friend. Alexis Bledel shines as the beautiful and intelligent Rory Gilmore and Keiko Agena is one of a kind as Rory's best friend, Lane Kim. I love the witty dialog, it's what makes it unique about the show. Kelly Bishop is wicked great as Emily Gilmore and Edward Herrman is terrific as Richard Gilmore. Scott Patterson is a joy as Luke Danes and the band members are one of a kind to watch. The Community, Miss Patty, Babette, Mrs. Kim, Taylor Doose, Kirk and other's are always laugh out loud funny, quirky and interesting that always makes the snappy one-liners stand out. This show has changed so much over the years that it won't ever get old. Gilmore Girls is an original and clever show that keeps you watching. That is how good it is. I give this show a 10/10 rating.

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

positive
"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.

Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.

One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!

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

negative
The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter  do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, "You, The Living". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme. 

If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...

1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Excellent story of lives that need repair....one of those rare films that I could watch with my 7 and 8 year old daughters... Glenn Close was excellent in the title role. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken in a more normal role.

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

positive
One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period. 

The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am a long time fan of Luc Besson's work, and for about as long as I've known his name, I've also looked for this movie. I tried looking for this movie all over California for over four years. this past summer i took a trip to Europe, one of my missions on this trip was to at least see this movie. long story short, I bought it and watched it in France! I was blown away, it completely made my trip and i finally feel content that i have seen Luc Besson's first work. absolutely amazing character development, very thought provoking, great acting and the ultimate concept movie. if you are a concept movie fan this is one of the most original and classic. I feel as though it is a rare treat to see a movie like this one, its risky, its unorthodox, and ultimately its just downright unique. if you are a Luc Besson fan, its indeed a must see, however, whether your a Besson fan or not, its definitely an important work, overall a great contribution to the immortal art of cinema.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Overall, I give this film a decent 7.6. To start I'll say I love how the character was portrayed and adapted on to the screen. If you read comics occasionally or simply watch DVD extras you'll see the Blade character is drastically different from the one we see in the film. Among the changes, Blade is now most importantly half vampire, therefore acquiring "all of their strengths, but none of their weaknesses." The credit for this goes obviously to David Goyer, a fellow fan of the darker genre of comic books. Thanks to him Blade has become a much more interesting character and I find him one of my favorite anti-heroes really. Wesley Snipes is born to play this role, although some would've probably pererred Dezenel Washington or Will Smith (lol). His acting here doesn't need to be exactly Oscar winning per say considering the character but I'm glad he decids to play the DayWalker in the two sequels. Also starring is Stephen Dorff as our main villain and Kris Kristofferson as Blade's Alfred so to speak. The acting is good actually and the action keeps the plot going for sure. The opening scene in the club is one of my favorite parts I've got to say. As much as like this movie there are few things that bother me which take away from this film ranking with something like "Spider-Man" or "X-Men". Stephen Norrington had the villains portrayed in a way I didn't like so much honestly. Their lines were so full of foul mouthed comedy it didn't really feel like a comic book film to me. Plus "La Magra" a bit disappointing as the final villain but the intense sword fight makes up for it I guess. Not to mention a sense of extra non-realism: a black man in a leather coat with a sword beaing the #$%^ out of a cop in broad day light some how going unnoticed by the crowds walking by seemed kinda..well...dumb. Moving away from a few of its flaws, the music by Mark Isham was great and fitted the film nicely. Luckily all these problems are fixed and improved on in the stunning sequel, "Blade 2".

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

David Suchet,(Poirot),"FoolProof",'03, gave an outstanding performance as a perfectionist in almost everything he did or said. If he had a cocktail, he always had a napkin to blot the excess on his mouth with unbelievable perfection! You could just view the expressions on the detective's face and see that he never missed an item of importance in the suspects behavior. The beautiful Falls Colors through out the English countryside was simply breath taking. Megan Dodds, "Bait",2000, gave an outstanding performance as a very sexy, wild woman who was able to keep very important secrets away from Mr. Poirot. A very enjoyable film if you really like the acting of David Suchet as Mr. Poirot!
Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

"Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it, everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10 out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it.

Systemoffell
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive