cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).

As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.

Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.

To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.

Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.

Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).

I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.

My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!

I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.

Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:



This film has some really impressive action scenes. The humor and action are blended well, though the intensity of the film does not sustain itself till the end. The last scene is a slight anti-climax in terms of action quality and astonishing explosiveness of the scenes preceding it. The humor doesn't seem to be so ridiculously clumsy as in many other Hongkong movies, and this film is of totally other class than most American action-comedies of recent years. Lau Ching-Wan acts as a typical, intuitive police-hero who scoffs at invalid orders from incompetent police superiors. The dialectic of the film is built on the superhuman coolness and ruthlessness of the drug gang, humiliating the police force while providing a serious dose of lead poisoning with a variety of machine guns. Leaving plenty of corpses in it's wake. Yu Rong-Guang is especially impressive as an ultra cool, merciless gangster in this Woo-like piece of action where tough guys are truly die-hard.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Lackawanna Blues is a moving story about a boy who is raised in a house by some pretty unusual people. 

It's editing and soundtrack really pulls you in to the story and lets you experience the film the way the writer really meant for it to be seen.

The music really tied into the story, which made the characters come to life. The editing made the story more progressive and captivating. 

I was also surprised by some of the performances of the cast, most notably S. Epatha Merkerson's.

I can't wait to see the one man show featuring this films writer, Ruben Santiago-Hudson.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious. I already knew it was going to be a funny movie, but it was funnier than I expected. Sure there were some lame jokes, but they cracked me up. I thought the actors were going to turn out to be pretty bad, but the actors were good in acting out this comedy. I have to give kudos to Amanda Bynes, she looked surprisingly like her brother and pulled off an awesome performance as a boy. As for the other actors, they were funny as well. Of course there were moments where you yell at the screen "how can you not tell?", but that's all part of the fun. In the end the plot turned out pretty well. There's a happy ending, but what'd you expect. 

Overall,just hilarious.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. " Jackass Number Two" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear! 

8 out of 10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

i was glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.

i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight!
I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's "Tempest" has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie "Tempest" is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What "Tempest" is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip/Prospero is in itself worth a 10/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Mom has to be one of the all time uncomfortable movies to watch. It features an elderly lady you would love to have as your Nanny who becomes the nastiest mother f***ing monster you would ever want to meet on a dark night!

This supper Nanny eats the inners of a young lady at the opening of the movie and it just gets sicker as it goes on. A cross between the howling and brain dead seem to come to mind when describing Mom!

A must for horror fans who have the stomach for it (if you have watched re-animator or brain dead, this will float your boat)and are willing to switch the brain off for an hour or so...Let the gore pour!...8/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
My Wife and Kids was billed as the 00s very own Cosby show- but unlike the latter, it was unfunny and unwatchable. In fact, it is so poorly written and some of the jokes revolve around Michael mickey taking Michael Jr's dumbness and the fact that he is such a loser- which got more and more tedious and annoying as the show went on.

What was supposed to have been a promising hit, eventually turned into a dumb, silly show later on where the ideas became so OTT and ridiculous. And as for the second Claire, i ended up disliking this character so much: she became a spoilt, childish and moaning teenage brat, in most of the later episodes.

MWAK was no Cosby show trend setter, rather it was just a poor black sitcom by general standards.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.

Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten.
"Christmas In Connecticut" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at holiday time. I watch it every year.

Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly "uncle" restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine!

Dennis Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend Christmas in a "real" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.

To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.

The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.

As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.

Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.
I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.

And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.

I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.

It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.

There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.

I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.

The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.

The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.



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

negative
SHOWTIME is a mess, but it's an entertaining mess. The plot is forgettable, the satire is lightweight and the action sequences, though well-staged, aren't that exciting. But I laughed. A lot. Credit goes to the inspired pairing of De Niro and Murphy. They have great chemistry. Murphy delivers the one-liners, De Niro cracks us up with a look or grimace. This movie will get a RUSH HOUR-like reception from the critics. Don't listen to them. If you're a fan of De Niro or Murphy, you're going to enjoy this movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Dr. Marnie Bannister (Magda Konopka) is a horribly disfigured woman. When one of her colleagues discovers a rejuvenation formula, Marnie sees it as her opportunity to become beautiful. When she's denied the drug because of possible side effects, she kills her colleague to get what she wants. The drug works and she becomes beautiful. But the formula brings out the worst in her and it's not long before she's left a string of bodies behind her.

Have you ever heard the expression "as exciting as watching paint dry"? That pretty much sums up Satanik. During the film, one of the characters utters the line, "Something so horrible, it's inconceivable." I wasn't sure if he was talking about something in movie or the movie itself. I'm really disappointed because I had high hopes for this one. Satanik had possibilities, but they're never realized. At every opportunity, the plot has Marnie do the dullest things imaginable. The writing is horrible. And part of the problem is Magda Konopka. She's not that appealing and cannot carry the film on her own.

Another big problem with Satanik is the direction and editing. It's a mess. We see things and places that have no bearing on anything in the movie. The camera lingers on shots too long after the scene is over. I can't think of a single shot that would call anything but unoriginal. This group of filmmakers exhibits little in the way of imagination or talent.

I may not be familiar with the Italian comic on which Satanik is supposedly based, but I'm sure it's got to be better than this.
What's an example of a movie review?

I love this movie. Even though I rated it a "4", that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the "B" universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer! 

I remember what Leonard Maltin said about "Plan 9 From Outer Space": a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it!
Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion.

Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel.

The laughs are there, and several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are not shown as all mighty know it all's of "The Word", but instead people just trying to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this film... not by a long shot.

The acting is top notch, the writing spot on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something about yourself.

And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a free movie.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

First, the positives: an excellent job at depicting urban landscapes to suit the mood of the film. Some of the shots could be paintings by De Chirico. Sophie Marceau, beautiful.

The negatives: the stories are hard to believe. Unreal, uni-dimensional characters preen and posture 100% of the time, as if they were in some kind of catwalk. This is neither the Antonioni of his earlier, much better movies nor the Wenders we've all come to know and appreciate. Malkovich is excess baggage in this movie.
Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy! 

Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value! 

The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am definitely not a gamer, but a couple people in my family and my boyfriend are. So, a little reluctantly I decided to find out what the big deal was with "fantasy stuff". I saw Dorkness Rising and thought it was HILARIOUS! It's slapstick, but not disrespectful to those that enjoy role playing games. Also, and most importantly, people who've never gamed before can enjoy it and not feel left out or lost trying to understand the plot. The acting was great and the field shots/set were believable. This makes me want to see other movies by this production company. I can't wait to see what the future holds for this group! Three cheers - well done!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
i totally disagree with the person who first commented about this movie. to me, this storyline is about a man with growth hormonal disorder trying his best to look for the love he is yearning for. Trying his very best to fit into the society who doesn't seemed to accept him.

He then met someone who treats him with best friend's love and was shown the way to receiving the love he always wanted to have. the man who created all that happiness in returned received something important from the giant, which is family and spouse love.

and the comedy, it's just part of making the audience feel some laughter bugs at certain part of the shows.

and i must admit, it made me tear a little.

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

positive
What can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.

Writer/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.

The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a "future" that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the "humans" in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)

The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before? 

I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies?

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.
What's an example of a movie review?

I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.
After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made in 1950.

All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school mistresses.

Although the film's script contains only two original lines from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's silent classic "7 Chances". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before, if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget, short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what the credits say on their films, real "stooge-philes" know that they had a lot of input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always "pooh pooh" The Stooges or Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm all about the walking dead, but my mind is still unsure of the walking, frozen dead. Sadly, THE CHILLING didn't help me make up my mind. This is really slow with nothing happening for the first 45 minutes, making me hit the "film enhancement" button several times. By the time the well designed zombies show up, it is too late and the director (two are rumored to have filmed this) has no idea how to shoot them. Haggerty, Blair and Donahue all look tired/embarrassed/recovering in some fashion. I will give the film credit as it predates the T2 ending with villains being frozen by liquid nitrogen. The Shriek Show DVD offers an extended promo reel from back in the day that runs 8 minutes long and I would actually recommend that over watching the flick in its entirety.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have only see three episodes of Hack, starring David Morse, and it looks as though I've missed 37 episodes! well thats if ITV 3 are showing them in chronological order. I've just watched 'Misty Blue' (episode 38). I have really enjoyed the 3 episodes, but then I'm a David Morse fan, (esp St. Elsewhere). For any one reading this, Hack is excellent. Pity its being aired on ITV 3. The cast is strong, though I cant get used to the idea of David playing a bent cop, still we all know he's the good guy wrongly accused. I see Gary Cole has guest starred, what ever happened to 'Midnight Caller'? Just wonder if Hack is available on DVD (yet). Lovin it. Cheers.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program.
Write a negative movie review.

Just in case the title didn't give it away - this movie is garbage.

Short review? Yeah.

I decided to spend as much time writing this review as Hollywood probably decided to put into the script. I doubt it'll be published considering how poorly I worded everything but if this is and anyone reads it -- stick to cherishing the first Sandlot movie. It completely surpasses its predecessors in every single way. The sequels aren't ever worth buying or seeing and everyone involved in making them should be ashamed for ruining what has to be one of the most classic, original films of our childhood.
Spoiler Alert I worked as an extra on this Lifetime TV movie (filmed in Seattle). It's really interesting when you take part in the production of a movie, because usually, they are still in the process of either still writing parts (as was the case here) or making editing cuts and major changes from the final parts.

My husband and I both worked as extras in this movie, and I recall them discussing on the set how it was yet to be determined whether or not the little girl dies in the end. Frankly, I never thought Margaret Colin's character really got adequate punishment for her crime of hit and run, lying to police, covering up, etc. Could you imagine how the ending would have had to change if she had ended up killing the hit and run victim instead of her ending up coming out of her coma okay? Just something to think about.

By the way, I play a police detective you can see for a split second and my husband plays another detective you can see quite often (we've counted four times). Margaret Colin was great to work with and very down to earth, although Lisa Vidal (now a Lifetime regular) was aloof.

Overall, the movie turned out to be about a 7/10, but like another poster commented, is still a real tear-jerker and makes a great Saturday afternoon cable flick.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Only if you are crazy about Amber Smith should you see this. Besides her svelte body there is pretty much nothing in terms of cinematic value. She even has a lesbian scene in this one. My guess is she is trying to metamorphize into those late night scream queens ala Shannon Tweed and Julie Strain.
It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.

My Grade: D- 

DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute "Armed and Dangerous" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute "behind Precinct Walls"; "Plan of Attack"; "The Assault Team"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for "Unleashed", "White Noise", :Seed of Chucky" 

Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of "Cry Wolf"; a 10 minute first look at "Unleashed"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like "Battlefield Earth" or "3000 Miles to Graceland"). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere.

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

negative
I think the problem with this show not getting the respect it truly deserves is that it comes after Seinfeld,after ELR and after Friends. Those three sitcoms were the star shows of their time.

KOQs came at the end of this special time in TV. 

But don't let that dissuade you.

King of Queens is as good if not better than two of the three mentioned.

Seinfeld started it all and was and is a timeless classic. I never laughed so hard than I did at Seinfeld. But KOQs comes real close.

When it comes to laughing, I have to rate KOQs second only to Seinfeld. ELR has to be second though as the character creation and interaction is more endearing.

Either way, KOQs is top ten of the last 20 years.

The only other sitcom worth mentioning now is Two and a Half Men which really doesn't hold a candle to the other four but is all we have left.

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

positive
This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. 

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

In a not totally successful attempt to be taken seriously, and move into 'adult' films, Mr. Hughes gives us this film about a young married couple. True, it's got every cliche in the book in it, silly fantasy stuff and all that, but more importantly- it's got Elizabeth McGovern.

Clearly the best actress to have ever appeared in a John Hughes film, she lends a weight to it that elevates the sometimes silly material. Kevin Bacon (and his hair) is pretty good as her husband, but McGovern steals the movie with her quiet true moments of honesty. The 'teen film' fun that worked so well in other Hughes films falls flat here- like a favorite uncle whose jokes made you laugh when you were 9, but keeps telling them when you are 15 and you wish he'd find some new material. But I keep going back to McGoverns performance, because it's truly moving. Mr. Hughes most interesting films to me have real actors in them (Some Kind of Wonderful, Breakfast Club) and when his material bumps up against a true talent, some wonderful things can happen. If only he'd trust that it doesn't have to be tarted up with the silly fantasy stuff.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is one of my favourite comedy films. Chris Farley is hilarious as the accident prone moron and David Spade is perfect playing the straight-man to Farley.

The dialogue between the two of them is brilliant. The scene where the two of them are in the car singing along to Superstar by The Carpenters is a classic.

Chris Farley was a great comic actor who had amazing potential - he will be sadly missed.
Determine the sentiment:

This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and "civilizing" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .

Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .

The script is clichéd but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Pretty.

Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.

This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.

The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.

I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.
Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious  the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed  little wonder I've given Redneck a 3/10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative