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

Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.
An interesting comedy, taking place on a train from Stockholm to Berlin, December 1945. One can't help to feel sorry for the poor writer/critic who quits his job and jumps on the train to Berlin. His ambition is to make a difference, and to participate in building the new unified Europe after the war has ended.

I like the black and white format of the movie, as well as the closed scenery of a train in motion.

Robert Gustafsson makes a classic "Gustafsson-role" in this movie. If you're a fan of him, this movie is for you!

The philosopher Wittgenstein, through his saying "One can never assume that anything is what it seems to be", is referenced several times in the movie.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Just ingenious enough to be plausible and still a lot of fun, this is a pure slice of the 1970s (Even the cops need haircuts badly!). Shot in and around London, the plot of the American ex-con who tries going straight but finds himself sent as an electrician to a bank in Mayfair, and then has the screws put on by crime lord David Niven, and finds himself plotting the crime of the century is well-handled.

I liked its simplicity and even innocence, it harks back to a time when caper films where just that, a caper, and violence wasn't a part of the deal.

All in all you could do a lot worse than watch this: it has enough twists and turns to give it some oomph and a cast that obviously had fun making it.

Nicely made and watchable.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

'Toy Soldiers' is the story of five misfits boys (most noteably being Sean Astin, Wil Wheaton, and Kieth Coogan) attempt to save their school from a terrorist invasion after the American government imprisons the leader's father. Lou Gosset Jr. plays the headmaster of the school, a headstrong guy who tries to instill in his students a sense of discipline.

'Toy Soldiers' is a funny and pretty cool action, and certainly the better of hostage-crisis-at-school movies. I think most of the appeal comes from the teen cast, but also, the terrorists don't come off as completely useless whereas in some movies, they never seem to be quite the intimidating group that they should. Trapped inside the boarding school, and threatened to be killed if the military or police interferes, this is a very formidable challenge for these group of guys who plan to save the school. They're actually pretty clever about it, too.

I was surprised that it was a pretty good movie. It keeps a steady pace and doesn't get ridiculously sentimental or anything like that. Astin and Gosset Jr. give good performances. 

I, too, agree that this is an underrated action movie.
My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that "Married Man" HBO show. The ensemble cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give this film a "Standing O."

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I've discovered this movie accidentally and it was really a nice surprise. A Christmas Classic,it's also one of the fine comedies of the 40s. The story line is simple : Elisabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) makes out her living by writing culinary columns for a magazine. At Christmas time, her boss, Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet) asks her to invite a young weakened sailor in the Connecticut farm she write about. The only problem is : She hasn't got any farm and she can't cook. To get out of the jam, Elisabeth agrees to marry a wealthy friend (Reginald Gardiner,who has a farm) and flies for Connecticut with her wonderful cook Uncle Felix. 

There's a fine direction by Peter Godfrey and the cast is really wonderful : Stanwyck has never been better as this witty and yet romantic woman. Greenstreet, Gardiner and Sakall make hilarious and human supporting characters. The only weak point is the leading man, Dennis Morgan. He starts well but as the movie goes on, becomes really a bore. One almost feels sorry for Elisabeht Lane to ends up with him rather than with Gary Cooper or David Niven who both would have been more suitable for the part. Anyway, this is a joyful Christmas time movie with a refreshing score and I advice it to everyone who likes to spend funny and sweet Holidays...in Connecticut.
Misfit recruit private Owens tests drill instructor Sgt Moore's (Jack Webb) skills. No explosions or bloodshed or hip soundtrack or sex. It is set at the USMC's Parris Island S.C. boot camp and most of the cast were actual Marines. Memorable one-liners abound, and the closing credit's "dedicated to..." is intense. With such strong male and female characters, this movie could not be made in today's touchy-feely world.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Where do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake! 

Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!

I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is definitely a girl movie. My husband found it utterly boring, but I think this is a really sweet movie. It's amazing to think that just a note can bring so many people together. This is a great get-away for anyone who loves a cute, funny romance!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
To start off, this happens to be my favorite of the ST OS.

In addition to StuOz's critical comments I'll throw in some more: Getting technical, when the Enterprise fires it's photon torps at a blind target, they'd have to be mighty close to direct hits (I believe) in order to cause any disturbance much less damage to the Romulan vessel with the vacuum of space to contend with.

I had somewhat of a problem with the Romulan commander questioning his faith in the Romulan "protocol" or their leadership, unless it has to do with attacking vulnerable targets (outposts in the neutral zone) that are not at war. Also, I don't think commander would fall for the basic, or simple tactics that Kirk played, such as "playing dead," or falling for the ploy that the subordinate puts on him about whether or not to attack the Enterprise when it is playing dead.

On the Enterprise: I'm surprised that after seeing the Romulan vessel's method of attack earlier, that Sulu would say, "Are they surrendering?" when it attacks the Enterprise the first time.

Funny how Spock can only get the repair done on the weapons control right when the emergency is over.

Also in the final attack, I thought the Romulan vessel was uncloaked too long (so long that Spock could run down a couple aisles and back to the weapons room and activate and fire the photon torpedoes. I would have used phasers at this point, but I'm sure it had to do with the technicians and budget).

On the positive side: It's a good drama played on the Romulan vessel, in which to introduce us to the Romulans. Great scenes with Stiles telling a good deal of the human knowledge of the Romulans. Also his conflict with Spock is right up there. I wished Stiles' character would have stayed on the show for a while, if for nothing else than the energy he added.

It's only in fun that I point out the negatives and goofs, (I'm sure there are more). But for me this is as good as it gets!! "Balance of Terror" is always the one I place at the top in my ST rankings.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.

The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's "it."

The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a "teeny bopper" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over." In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.

Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of "protagonists" is being "interrogated" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement "What are you, some kind of a question asker?" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.

While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.

1.5/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. 

But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.

The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?

Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Where do I begin? Walt Disney's happiest motion picture "Lady and the Tramp" is one of, if not possibly, my favourite in the theatrical canon of Disney animation. The sequel, however, is... to say the very least, enjoyable. I enjoyed myself throughout the whole movie. It was, (flame-shield up!) adorable! The Broadway style of the songs and the movie kind of worked, and I was humming the songs for the rest of the night. I can, if you asked me to, still sing all of the songs.

But where the movie was (really) good for me, it was bad in a lot of other places. The animation was kind of scary at times. Every time there was a close up shot of someones face, I don't know... it just seemed scary to me. Also, where the hell was Lady? She gets like two lines of dialogue and only doggy hugs Scamp at the end. She gets 0% interaction with the plot and her only son!

But all in all, I liked it. Compared to the original does it hold up? No. The songs aren't as good (still kind of catchy though), the plot was a lot less involved, Lady had almost nothing to do with it, and it's not as cute as the first one. But, if you go in with an open mind, you'll have fun, and maybe 'gasp!' Like it?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.

The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.

In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I was truly surprised when I first saw this movie directed by Iain Softley; it differs in so much ways from the usual Hollywood mass-production. The plot itself is simple - Kevin Spacey plays a mental patient Prot who claims to be from the planet K-pax who arrived to Earth by a beam of light, while Dr. Powell played by Jeff Bridges tries to help him to solve his delusions... First of all, I must admit the cast is perfectly chosen: Kevin Spacey is really brilliant in portraying the intriguing character of Prot, always walking in the fine line of convincing us that it is real and then making us wonder whether he is delusional or not... Some of the gem scenes include the one where Prot innocently eats the whole banana (even the peal) while in session with Dr. Powell; or the observatory scene where he confidently shows his knowledge of the K-Pax system to the astonished astronomers... Jeff Bridges on the other hand is the subtle, rational side of this movie, and he delivers it perfectly. There is a whole other cast of excellent actors (like Saul Williams' convincing performance as Ernie) who make this film truly work.

K-pax has it all, elements of comedy; Sci-Fi, even psychological thriller (concerning the Prot's identity) but most importantly it can be categorized as a heartwarming drama. The main premise of the movie is quite intricate, but the director never lets it get loose, he always keeps it believable and yet two-ways interpretable. The camera and photography have almost a crucial part here, continuing the main idea of light travel, there is much focus on light-shadow play, lightning settings - one of the memorable scenes is where Dr. Powell holds a crystal figure in his office which refracts light in a beautiful way while all the time he suspects can the idea be true? 

Subtle and slow paced, intriguing and pleasurable, K-pax is truly a gem to watch, one of the kind movie that may not be for all tastes, but those who see it - might fall in love with it.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.
Bonny Hunt scores a coup with her directorial debut. Minnie Driver and David Duchovny have that indescribable something called chemistry. Sure the plot is unlikely, but that doesn't stop one from enjoying this film. Carroll O'Conner does a great job as Grace's grandfather. Other great character actors play his card buddies. Jim Belushi is hilarious as the down-to-earth husband of Megan, part of the extended family.

Faith, family, and marriage are respected. A few sexual references and salty words are used but in context and with gentle humor.

 And in the background that wonderful Dean Martin tune--"Return to Me."

Recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's "haunted house" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.
I'm afraid I only stayed to watch the first hour of this movie as it really seemed to me to be mindless TV-trash and a waste of talent. Liv Tyler plays a sumptuous beauty, but her acting skills are not yet sufficiently developed to give the part any real kick. As she slowly seduces a bartender into a life of crime it is difficult to feel any real concern over any of the characters. Even John Goodman delivers his weakly comic lines with an absence of panache, as if the witless humour needs to be recited slowly in case anyone misses the joke. The ending is supposed to be good, but the starter and main course left me with no appetite to find out.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This 1931 comedy gets better with every viewing because of the comedic talents of Marion Davies and a terrific performance by C. Aubrey Smith. Smith plays a gruff old man who gathers his grown children (from his younger days as a rake) in his declining years. One is American (Davies), one English (Ray Milland who looks about 18), and one Italian (Nina Quartero). There are some surprises as the plot moves along with Ralph Forbes(was has no appeal at all) falling for Davies.

Davies and Smith are just wonderful together and very touching. Davies also gets to do a few dances and make a few "big" entrances. And of course Davies is just gorgeous.

Halliwell Hobbes, Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, Guinn Williams, Edgar Norton, and David Torrence co-star. Had they given out supporting Oscar awards in 1931, Smith might well have been nominated. He's just excellent in this this gem.
I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. "The Last American Virgin" came in a time were such teenage coming of age/high school sex romps were the rave. Films such as "Prepies" (1984), "Hot Times" (1974) and the popular "Porky's " (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the "Last American Virgin" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating, but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s Americana and worth having in your movie collection.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light.

It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.

To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing  the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father  the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering  the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute  and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all timebut lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.

So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics  that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time  like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Brought to you by the following among others:

1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Yigal's Career: 

Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982

2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)

3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.

Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!

I think, therefore I am.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.

The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.

Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.

In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is still alive and kicking today thanks to the presence of Alan Ladd. This is good in one way because the movie has some interesting things to say, but bad in another because everyone who watches it expecting that tough-guy Ladd is going to hoop through his usual paces, is going to be mighty disappointed. Without fanfare or introduction, Ladd is suddenly introduced in the third reel. True, his role is a key one but it's small and likely to get lost in the shuffle. There are many key roles in former newspaperman Martin Mooney's ambivalent screenplay which hits out at all political alliances and quite ruthlessly denigrates Reform candidates. It's the lovely and extremely talented Joan Woodbury who ties the various strands of the wide-ranging story together. Unlike the usual Hollywood production, the plot actually proceeds in a series of jumps, much like the films later turned out by the French "New Wave", though easier to follow here, especially if you are aware that the film's original title was Paper Bullets. Nonetheless, some of the film's narrative and character switches are a little disconcerting, particularly in the role played by Jack LaRue who has wisely elected to act the part in a strangely non-committal way. One of Jack's best acting jobs ever, but no-one is likely to notice, alas!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

So, it's Friday night and you want to go watch a movie...all you want is something entertaining, not too artsy, or anything that might require a long night of philosophical discussions. So, you pay $10 to watch the Mod Squad. The trailer to this movie should have tipped me off, but come on...it's three of Hollywood's most beautiful people--eye candy. But that's about it...a string of moving Prada ads. And what did Hollywood producers forget? A plot. Why are these kids running around the streets after some unknown enemy? Where are they? But, don't worry, after a while, you'll just stop caring. I was on the verge of walking out of this movie, because I thought sitting in my room and staring at the wall might have been more productive (and free), but by that time, it was over (90 minutes--it's only saving grace). So, still willing to waste $10? Go, get yourself a nice hot meal.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it .
I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface. 

Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.

Vote: 9
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.

The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.

Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.

The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.

Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.

A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.

If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script!
How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America / Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; "how many times have we been in this situation before bud?" - "too many" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This was a fantastic movie about two people, one a young teenage girl, and the other, a middle aged man, who are each looking for someone to help them fulfill a certain emptiness left by former loved ones.

Both actors give brilliant performances that various audiences can relate to. The script, although written by Gorman Bechard, seems as though it was written from a woman's point of view. And at the same time, men can relate to the male characters because of how well they were developed and described in the movie.

The end of the movie has an unusual but powerful and unexpected twist that leaves you speechless. I would recommend this film to anyone who has ever felt lonely or abandoned by a loved one. It is clear in this film that you are not alone.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.

One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.

The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long. 

Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

"Bar Hopping" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay "shrink" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: That snarl...

That scowl...

The acts of random violence...

The gutteral voice...

The fetish wear...

That shaven head...

It can mean only one thing...

GRACE JONES IS BACK!

Actually my sources tell me that the title role in Blade wasn't played by the 1980s diva, but by Wesley Snipes.

All in all this is not an improvement.

Blade is an adaptation of a comic character; somehow in the transfer from the simplistic, two-dimensional world of the printed page it has become even more simplistic and lost a couple of dimensions.

The plot is hackneyed almost beyond belief and adds nothing to the vampire genre, in fact, much like Nosferatu, it seems to suck the life out of the audience. In brief, upwardly mobile vampire wants to become more powerful but is opposed by Blade, half-human, half-vampire, all annoying. It all climaxes with Blade being put in a vampire juice press, some bad martial arts and the most pitiful CGI since 1968.

Blade has to be the least empathic character since Dolph Lundgren's Punisher (also a comic adaptation, perhaps there is a trend here?). Surely the audience is meant to be on the same side as the 'hero'? And whilst a vampire can be a tragic character, this is not true of Blade, he is relentlessly cruel, scornful and not a whole lot better than the bad guys.

I assume that Wesley Snipes has an 'acting' career purely so that everyone else can be compared favourably. As he snarls his way through his movie you find yourself looking for a stake - even a ballpoint pen - anything to put Blade in the grave. 

As a piece of narcissism, Blade is pretty much unbeatable - we are treated to endless lingering shots of a gym-fresh Snipes for no reason whatsoever. Likewise no other actor is allowed any chance to give a reasonable performance; the likes of Steven Dorff *CAN* act, but they have to play second fiddle to Snipes' tedious performance.

Kris Kristofferson used to appear in good movies, here he is reduced to a sidekick that you just know isn't going to make it through to the final reel. And what happens when Blade finds out? Yes, you guessed it, he rushes to the scene to wreak his revenge in the villain's giant underground lair.

Why can't world-domination take place in a quiet country house? They always go ahead in underground cathedrals that would have had Albert Speer wondering if they were a little grandiose. A lot of these plans could be stopped right now if local councils paid more attention to plans for extending sub-basements. 

The rest of the movie is just as dull and unimaginative with nothing new to add to the genre. Vampires have been done to undeath and perhaps they should be laid to rest for a while - at least until someone can think of some way to make them interesting again.

To finish, there *IS* a Grace Jones vampire movie, it's called Vamp and it's about ten times better than this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative