cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: First of all, I really can't understand how some people "enjoyed" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!

However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).

Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this "thing!".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This film was really a breath of fresh air from the load of Hollywood crap I've seen recently. The acting is superb and the characters are engaging and oddly endearing. There really isn't much to the story, it's simple and it works well. An easy film to just sit down and enjoy. The mood was fantastic and the sets really helped push the movie along and offered some nice visuals. The film obviously has aspects of horror, yet is geared a little more towards the humorous side of things. You won't be laughing out loud hysterically with this one, but you'll be smiling the whole way through. The humor works very well with the characters and the superb acting doesn't hurt. I really watched this movie based on the fact that Ron Perlman was in it. His role is a bit smaller than I expected, but it doesn't matter; the rest of the cast does more than enough to keep you engaged. If you like horror, watch this. If you like comedies, watch this. Just go ahead and watch this anyway, it's really quite excellent.
Despite John Travolta's statements in interviews that this was his favorite role of his career, "Be Cool" proves to be a disappointing sequel to 1995's witty and clever "Get Shorty."

Travolta delivers a pleasant enough performance in this mildly entertaining film, but ultimately the movie falls flat due to an underdeveloped plot, unlikeable characters, and a surprising lack of chemistry between leads Travolta and Uma Thurman. Although there are some laughs, this unfunny dialog example (which appeared frequently in the trailers) kind of says it all: Thurman: Do you dance? Travolta: Hey, I'm from Brooklyn.

The film suggests that everyone in the entertainment business is a gangster or aspires to be one, likening it to organized crime. In "Get Shorty," the premise of a gangster "going legitimate" by getting into movies was a clever fish-out-of water idea, but in "Be Cool," it seems the biz has entirely gone crooked since then.

The film is interestingly casted and the absolute highlight is a "monolgue" delivered by The Rock, whose character is an aspiring actor as well as a goon, where he reenacts a scene between Gabrielle Union and Kirsten Dunst from "Bring It On." Vince Vaughan's character thinks he's black and he's often seen dressed as a pimp-- this was quite funny in the first scene that introduces him and gets tired and embarrassing almost immediately afterward.

Overall, "Be Cool" may be worth a rental for John Travolta die-hards (of which I am one), but you may want to keep your finger close to the fast forward button to get through it without feeling that you wasted too much time. Fans of "Get Shorty" may actually wish to avoid this, as the sequel is devoid of most things that made that one a winner. I rate this movie an admittedly harsh 4/10.

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

negative
This movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.

Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!

2/10

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

negative
Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps in the "Odessa staircase" sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army troops.

The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers.

To experts on Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

But there are a couple of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, "Kill the Jews!" This is on screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there.

How cruelly typical of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately, unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble!

Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone?

Also, why can't speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as "Potyomkin" instead of as "Potemkin"? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible pronunciations of "e": as either "ye" or as "yo." Sometimes two dots are used to distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be memorized.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..

This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.

The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.

It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. 

Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

During the Sci-Fi TZ marathon of January 31, 1999, this episode was the last one aired in the 20th century in my time zone(Eastern). It was New Year's Eve, and when the clown starts singing, "We're here because we're here, because we're here, because we're here..." I realized that this was TZ's clever nod to it being New Year's Eve because that tune is also the tune to Old Lang Syne. Coincidence? We will never know.

I love this story for the little touches: The tear on the ballerina, the antics of the clown, and the hit-yourself-in-the-head ending. This and the Art Carney Santa TZ are the only ones that are about Christmas. 

My personal top five episodes, after Five Characters...: 1. The Hunt 2. The After Hours 3. The Hitchhiker 4. The Lonely 5. Little Girl Lost
What's an example of a movie review?

The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever scheduled my week around.

Intelligent, believable, well-written and well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw. (Peter Brown was no dog, either :o) 

I agree that it is one of the most underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my grandchildren to watch.
Determine the sentiment:

It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm not going to bother mentioning any of the plot - this is strictly a B movie on its way to obscurity. The shock to me, though, is seeing what has become of some of the actors in this film. Erika Eleniak, never anything you'd call a thespian anyway, seems to have morphed into Anna Nicole Smith (in her Big period). Daniel Bernhardt - I almost shed a tear. He's always been a favorite of mine because of his martial arts prowess, as seen in the Bloodsport series (also B movies but, if you like martial arts, eminently watchable). Here, he is a shell of his former self - sure, he's older, but doing the mercenary thing and not even looking interested ... I just don't get it. Don't these people invest? William Forsythe is another "heavy" that I've always liked, but his last several roles are what you would call "mailing it in". I'm not going to even mention Mr. Reynolds - his gig here amounts to a throwaway, nothing more. The only winner is Andrew Divoff, as usual a creepy, evil, pockmarked villain with a sandpaper voice that can curdle milk - the best kind! This is a movie you watch for laughs. There's nothing else to it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.

Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.

Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)

It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.

The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.

I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.

So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.

Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.

Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.
This cartoon documents the second encounter between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, and is definitely better than their first meeting in Fast and Furry-ous (1949).

If measured by aesthetic value, then this cartoon would not rank among the top 5 or 6 of the year 1952. Regardless, this is a very funny short. Coyote (Carnivorous Vulgaris) chases the Roadrunner (Accelerati Incredibilus) along the road and gets completely tired out. The ingenious scientific "Latin" names of the characters are very original, and has been mimicked before in other un-related cartoons. The coyote collapses and puts on a wonderful expression of- I don't know -boredom. Such Jonesesque expressions make this cartoon provide more than its fare share of laughs in seven minutes. Then he has an idea, and another laughable expression is worn. The slapstick jokes are all hilarious, and mask the fact that it is truly evil to inflict such pain on a poor, helpless, GENIUS coyote. Everyone knows, but who cares?

The old rocket gag is present, too. Coyote straps himself to a rocket, which should produce enough oomph for him to catch up with Roadrunner and grab him. Instead, the rocket shoots up into the air and becomes a firework in the distance: Eat at Joe's. This classical gag originates from this cartoon; though obvious, it still makes people laugh.

The highlight truly is the chase through the mineshaft. The two wear helmet-lights, and we see the tunnel through which the two are going, with only the lights visible. Here, the comedy reaches a peak. A must-see sequence, maybe even the best sequence in the early days of Roadrunner. The final touch is provided by the writing of Michael Maltese, as Coyote's light goes out and he unknowingly lights a match in a room full of explosives, the surface is shown where a bunch of cactus jump and spell out the letters "YIPE!" after the blast. Such small things make you laugh all through a mere seven minutes, and as soon as it starts the fun's all over. The rocket skates are another good idea, as is the free drink of water and the anvil on the tight-rope (a sequence that appears in Space Jam [1996]). To give the results of those away would be useless. The free drink proves to be a problem for Wile E. at the end of the second-last sequence: namely the rocket skates.

This classical cartoon is littered with fine animation, except for the characters. Though they are animated very well, the two characters are very primitive; which might be an understatement. Though at first it may seem weird, the humor of the ensuing sequences makes one forget.

If you like vintage Jones, watch this. If you LOVE Roadrunner, get this on video. Excellent entertainment (Rating: 8/10).

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it. 

the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together. 

The story follows "Ponyo" a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke. 

the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ? 

I feel the movie was inspired by "The little mermaid" and at the same time similar to "Tonari no Totoro" 

the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short. 

I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.

Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like "A Course in Miracles" or "Conversations with God". They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.

The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at "Jesus Christ, Superstar" - original version from 1973.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Hey, you are not alone! I remember Nichols! I was just 17 when it was on. I remember James Garner was one of the coolest actors, and Nichols was such a great show. I couldn't believe it was on such a short time, wish I could remember the last episode, I probably didn't see it...there were no vcr's back then so it when it was on you saw it, and if you missed an episode it was gone forever unless it came back on summer reruns. Anyway, sure would be great if it came out on DVD, but I don't think that many people even knew about it. What a shame.

Garner would hit it big a few years later with Rockford Files, and he brought along his buddy Stuart Margolin from Nichols to play his sidekick Angel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here!

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I was lucky enough recently to see Ingrid Bergman's name attached to a film I had never seen (or even heard of) on AMC. What a stroke of luck.

To marvel at her flawless and seamless performance isn't the only reason to stay up late and watch this movie. The writing is wonderfully comical and the performances are excellent.

Walter Mathau (not my favorite) was nearly perfect and Goldie Hawn (suprisingly) was fabulous. Tender at times, demanding, then just plain goofy. There are times in the film that even the most hardened film viewer will get caught up in the story and forget that it is a movie.

That Bergman can steal a dance scene among a crowd of 20 year-olds was amazing to watch. She is effortless in her return to the screen (at age 54?). The supporting cast was great and the lines... the lines are exquisite.

A top 5 romantic comedy of all time.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime "Sense and Sensibility" or the extraordinary 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice" or the subtle intensity of 1995's "Persuasion", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.
Determine the sentiment:

Hard Justice is an excellent action movie! The whole movie is really nothing but shooting and fighting! For the people who say they don't make shoot em ups like they use to. Well, this one is really hard-core! David Bradley is really good and his character takes a pounding in the movie. He gets hit by the stick over a dozen times, gets stabbed in the back and is in a coma for three days and then wakes up and fights again, gets beat up, recovers and is ready for more action! His character is incredibly tuff! Charles Napier was very good as well and he arguably steals the show! Vernen Wells was good! Professor Toru Tanaka had a short and an uncredited role in Hard Justice! As for the action, it is truly awesome with all of the gun fights and the huge stand off like scene in the beginning has cars getting blown up and flipping up in mid air! There is so much that happens in the 95 minute run time. For the action fans you will be blown away by all of the fire power and fighting that this film has to offer! Hard Justice is a movie that isn't easy to locate and if you are at a video store and you see it for sale buy it up because this movie is big keeper an d plus the box is cool! There is a ton of action that has to be seen to be believed! Look and see if you can find some good deals on Ebay, Half.com, Amazon.com's Z-Shops and Market Place Sellers! I strongly recommend that any action movie fan who loves shoot ems and fighting movies and has been disappointed by other movies that have the look like a true non stop action flick but fails to deliver it to get Hard Justice!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

The Women is a cute movie about women at all ages (but mostly 30+) and their issues in life. Not just men and infidelity, but also about relationships with friends & family, making time to connect with others, problems with image, compromising your values, accomplishments in life, and finding what will really make you happy.

It's also about being true to yourself. A lot of times, people will give you advice but not really follow it themselves. Sometimes they have created a delusion for themselves, and should you really follow in that same path or react based on your feelings now? I really liked this movie. Granted, it was trying a bit to be like Sex & the City at times, but that probably helped me like it. The difference here is it's kind of like the discoveries after the stage in life that the Sex & the City stars were in -- here, most are married or past the point of trying to find a man. Now, they are trying to find happiness in their marriages and lives.

Obviously it's not an Oscar contender, but it is entertaining and serves its purpose.

And for the men out there, there were an equal share of men and women in the movie theater (most were with their wives/girlfriends), and the men were in fact laughing. :)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a "story." At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over "parody" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.

If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.

Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.

This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.

Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.

...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall.
I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.

Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.

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

negative
It's difficult to decide who or what is the target audience for this film. Jean-Pierre Limousin presumably had the chance to explore the problems of amnesia on a serious level and opted instead to use it as an excuse to make a soft-porn movie. Having seen, loved, admired and respected Se Souvenir des belles choses which explores memory loss - albeit as the result of Alzheimer's - in a profound and heartbreaking way, not least in the luminous performance of Isabelle Carre I find that Novo is an insult to Se Souvenirs. I have no problem with soft porn per se - and even if I had I'd virtually have to give up going to movies so prevalent is it today - but I do have a problem with writers/directors who attempt to respectablise it by cloaking it as here in the guise of medical research. The sad thing is that fine actresses like Julie Gayet - so wonderful in Clara et Moi - and Anna Mouglalis - who seems to have hit into a double play after last week's Le Deluge and now this - are wasting their time on dross like this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.

First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.

I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!

This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film isn't supposed to be funny, but it made me laugh.

It isn't designed to be sad, but my heart felt heavy through a number of the vignettes.

It isn't written as action adventure, but my pulse raced more than once.

Just like life, this movie doesn't manipulate your emotions and tell you how to feel. It simply is, and you react.

If you don't find it funny or sad or moving, I suspect that says more about you than the film.

It amazing and refreshing to see a director so wholeheartedly celebrate that we are all human, and embrace that we are all trapped here, doing this "life" thing, over and over for as long as we must.

Tomorrow is another day.
What's an example of a movie review?

A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.

Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.

The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.

Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5/10
25 sitcoms had big screen spin-offs. Most of these came in the 1970's. Here is a list of all: Are you Being Served, Blackadder, Bless this House, Bottom, Dads Army, Father Dear Father, For the Love of Ada, George and Mildred, The League of Gentlemen, Love thy Neighbour, The Lovers, Man about the House, Nearest and Dearest, Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width, On the Buses (3), Please Sir, Porridge, Rising Damp, Steptoe and Son (2), That's your Funeral, Till Death us do Part (2), Up Pomeii (3), Whack-o, Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads and Whoops Apocalypse.

So there was a big-screen spin off of my all time favourite sitcom Dads Army. What the film focused on was when the men were enrolled. It showed the difficulties of getting a uniform and getting weapons. It was a big summary of the first series of Dads Army. At the end of the film they catch some German Spies in the church. The Home Guard come dressed as alter servers and had bayonets with them and defeated the Germans. The best bit in the film was when they were showing a HG lecture and a German lecture at the same time: German: Head office on the phone, would you get 10,000 bombs, (CUT TO HOME GUARD) GODFREY: Mrs Mainwaring on the phone, would you get 1/2lb of Brussel Sprouts.

This was probably the second best sitcom spin off movie, beaten only by Till Death us do Part (1969). It would have been better if at the start of the movie, it had already been formed, it was half way through the war. Though still an excellent movie, a good one for the family.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I've heard about this documentary for so long I knew I needed to take the time to watch it. As a documentary it's very well done, in that it takes a neutral observant view of their experience. There are no voice-overs, or interviewing. It is honest. It is true. It is also humbling. Two comments really stayed with me after the film was done. One was how the boys are told to not to become like the American boys who wear the baggy pants, and how in Africa there is time but no money, but in America there is money but no time. The biggest impact was how the boys hungered for education, and how one of the boys totally relocated himself so he could go to school. I watched this film with a high school sophomore who said it upset him to see how the boys were brought to their new life without any real orientation to America. He also said he knew so many American teens who simply cannot appreciate howblessed their lives are in America. I would agree with him on both accounts. A strong film that will leave a person thinking about many things.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I've been a fan of Larry King's show for awhile, I think he does a terrific job overall and I don't think he ever 'wusses' out, as so many people seem to believe. He's a subtle Scorpio, he gets his zings in when he needs to, just as he managed to do last night with Paris Hilton, during her first post-jail TV interview.

The thing about this entire case that has really amazed me is that Hilton is still apparently clueless about why Judge Sauer gave her what she believes was a too-harsh sentence (and what's more, actually MADE her serve it) . In all the time she was in jail, supposedly alone 23 hours a day in her cell, she never once, in her mind, rewound the events which led to her being given the sentence that Judge Sauer saw fit to impose on her. She never once realized that it just might have set off a major red flag when she (1) showed up late in court for the original hearing and (2) proceeded to inform him, when he asked her did she not know that her license had been suspended, did she not get the papers in the mail, that "I have people who read that sort of thing for me." 

All the time she was in her cell, she never came to the realization that this action (showing up late) and that statement -- and more importantly, the attitude - the utter cavalier disregard for the court system and the law in general and her driving privileges in particular that she displayed -- just might have made Judge Sauer (pardon the pun) go sour on her. 

Last night, on King's show, after giving lip service to how she has been changed forever by her traumatic experience, how she has "learned" her lesson, she answered his question, "Do you think you got a raw deal?" with a resounding yes. And during the course of the conversation (if you can call it that), she said more than once that she did not feel she deserved what had happened to her. King asked, gently, more than once, if she does not feel she creates the situations in her life that she "finds" herself in, to which she pretty much stared at him blankly. She basically, therefore, holds the conscious belief that she's been victimized in this situation; she does not understand how she herself caused it, that day in court, by her cavalier attitude with the judge. I feel this is very sad - tragic, even, considering what a huge "role model" Hilton is to some people, and it renders anything she said last night about her so-called rehabilitated state into the realms of complete and utter cluelessness, contradiction and hypocrisy. 

During the course of the interview, Hilton alluded to spending a lot of time in her cell reading the Bible. At the end of the interview, King scored major points by asking her what her favorite Bible passage was. She responded by groping perplexedly at her pathetic notes (completely superficial non-insights, which she had read on air as if she were Nelson Mandella or something) and finally grunting out, "I don't have a favorite passage." 

Judge Sauer, in my book, is a hero, and after last night, so is Larry King, for subtly exposing Hilton for what she truly is.