cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film has a premise that is good enough to get anyone talking, and a sure-fire conversation starter. 'Would you sleep with someone you dislike or don't know for one million dollars?' While the film had lots of potential, poor execution turns it into a b-grade soap-opera. The film has a great lead up, and after the proposal is made, we are really into the film, but then it falls dramatically. The last 3 quarters of the film is spent by characters whinging, complaining and regretting what they have done! The ending was so cliched it had me in tears! This has a very similar premise to 'honeymoon in vegas' which is far better. See that instead.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I bought the DVD out of a big bin for $4.99, thinking I'd lucked into some documentary pearl that would actually show extensive footage of the Karakoram mountains, and K2 in particular. Fast-forwarding through the film, I reached the climactic scene in which the climbers catch their first sight of ---- Mount Waddington, towering to all of 13,260 ft, in Canada's Coastal Range. At least one of the several bozos geared up to climb K2 clearly has no idea what the real mountain actually looks like -- he has to be assured by his friend and climbing partner that he wouldn't have been brought by said partner to an ugly mountain. Given that one of the film's premises is that 27 or so people have lost their lives on K2, you might think that the jerk in question might have taken a minute or two to bone up on a few basic facts, but the clown seems to think that preparations on this scale, while good enough for the likes of Reinhold Messner, are beneath him. To be honest, I haven't watched the whole thing. What I've seen makes me cringe. They say that you get what you pay for. At $4.99, I've been ripped off.
Write a negative movie review.

The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:

Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.

The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.

The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.

The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.

The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.

The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.

The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.

The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...

The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?

Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.

This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.

The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.
Talk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a "Wolfe Video." For those familiar with the gay-themed movies  this broadcasts a "must-see." (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been "tricked" into seeing a "Sodomite" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word "gay." The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really "new" here. Barely an original idea  hence bringing back the same 'ole "I have AIDS, let's deal with that" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I have found this epic to be of an astonishing, striking, even heartbreaking beauty. Some kind of monumentality in beauty and decorative richness, a magnificent dramatic movement and dynamism. The choreography herein is hugely enjoyable, the actors are thoroughly enjoyable. I have been a big fan of CROUCHING TIGER  as well, but this one was even better. They have Kitano's ingenuity in delighting in what is pleasurable. This beauty affirming adventure cinema is an act of courage. When was the suspense so exquisite and genuine? And the art of showing huge crowds, gigantic armies . The film has something deeply satisfying, and a steadfast good taste. There is an enormous pleasure in making such a deliberately impressing and clean show .It's good beyond words. Few, few adventure films ,let alone epics, gave me such an uninterrupted delight.

Fan can be monumental. is not monumental artbut is monumental fun,like Leone's movies, like some '60s epics; also like the hobbits trilogy. It is largesized fun.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition online that is at the website address Http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html that originally was trying to get this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations. Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling "Power Extreme!"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

So first things first..

Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.

Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.

In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.

Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.

My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.

overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.
Well,

First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film "The General" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.

Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.

Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and "The General" - I'd be interested to see what others think.


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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.

I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30 years to create film that has an "otherworldly" appearance. Supposing that this is a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss over the low-budget and shabby look, "Begotten" is on the top echelon of this pile.

Apart from the peerless "Eraserhead", anyway.

Merhige's painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen, they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not "Last House On The Left" disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun disturbance.

Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish. Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A man named Jerry comes into possession of an ancient Aztec doll.However this creepy little figure is possessed by an evil spirit,which takes over Jerry's body and pushes him to spill the blood...I have seen two other horror movies "The Dorm that Dripped Blood" and "The Kindred" made by Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow and I must say that "The Power" doesn't disappoint either.The plot is slow-moving,but there are some effective human goo effects and a little bit of gore.The scene of a female tabloid reporter being attacked by arms that come ripping out of a mattress is a hoot.I liked this low-budget horror movie and you should too,if you are into 80's horror genre.8 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.

In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.

In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar." 

There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."

About the only things true to the book were:

1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.

People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.

If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.

Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.

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

negative
So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.

Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.

What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.

Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.

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

negative
I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..

but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman? 

and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral

after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does

conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste

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

negative
I had the privilege of attending a regional premiere for this, this is one of the funniest British movies ever, the plot is fantastic, focusing around a young girl, who unwittingly changes into her ideal man at a computer fair, whilst also creating a copy of herself, who falls in love with him, the film is full of jokes, both visual and aural, and has a bright and fresh feel to it, and the acting is of great quality, released in U.K. on July 2nd this film is a must, go see it!!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the "Were Rabbit". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a "Brain Manipulator" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).

These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.

It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.

However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).

The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)

All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.

The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).

The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)

So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!

Alex
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

In short if you want to watch Burt Reynolds best films than this one must be included. If you don't like Burt you may still like this. If you love Burt this may become one of your favorite movies of all time! Being from Atlanta it does hit home but it's also nice to see a cop/action/drama that takes place somewhere other than NY City, Chicago, Miami, or LA. The film is funny at points with & good plot & good performances from a great supporting cast (every character is real & the bad guys are not so one sided they are really well thought out)A nice offbeat romance in the 2nd half & it has some good old fashion shootouts & fistfights (no CGI thank God REAL ACTION!)

If Clint Eastwood did his best impression of a Burt Reynolds movie with "Every Which Way But Loose" & "Any Which Way You Can" then Burt responded with his best Clint type flick with this, & it comes off great!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film had a couple of funny parts,but for the most part, made me want to go ahead and change DVD'S and watch "Malibu's" instead,which I had in my own collection. At least I would know there was something funny coming up and give me something to look forward to.

I was disappointed in this very low budget film. And I do not judge a movie by it's budget.It just lacked originality and was too predictable. I would not rent or even watch this film again, and I am usually a repeat offender of film. The actors were forgettable. The story was half thought out, and it left me with an insatiable urge to get my laugh on.I ended up watching Jamie Kennedy's White Boy Gone Gangsta to have the comedy itch scratched.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.

It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by this film.
I logged on here right after watching this movie, feeling that it was so awful that at least its reviews might be entertaining. But all you miscreants appear to kind of like it. And so, since I want the job done right...

From the opening shot, the movie establishes its contempt for the audience's attention span by showing an entirely unremarkable picture of an irrelevant bridge for a long, long time. Then it goes to some slow-motion skateboarding, which is at least a little bit cool, but then offsets that glimmer of excitement by overlaying the most repellent soundtrack song I've ever heard. Some girl screeching in whispery French over what sounds like sheets of plywood banging together. Whoever decided that needed to be there has never ridden a skateboard, I guarantee it. It seemed to be there to test the limits of the audience's patience.

From there, the movie is about 50 per cent slow motion. You know what's worse than a gratuitous slow-motion shot? A gratuitous slow motion shot of *nothing happening.* Here's a guy walking along a path. Here's a guy sitting. Here's a guy looking around. Here's a guy looking at another guy. After a while I started watching the movie at double speed, bringing it back down whenever people appeared on screen engaging in actual dialog, which was rare. Once, astonishingly, I slowed the movie to find out what a girl was saying, only to find that the camera was showing her talking, but the sound was another horrible, horrible song and her actual voice was not audible.

This reminds me of some great advice I heard once about writing -- if you don't have anything to say, don't use fancy tricks to pretend as though you do. Get back to work and think of something to say. All these camera tricks, like the slow motion and weird lighting and lenses and freaky music, is what the absence of content looks and sounds like. A lot of people have apparently bought it, and perceive emotional gravity and deep meaning, but I think they are projecting this onto a movie that did not do any of the work involved in creating it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Watched this months ago on Netflix Instant and left a review there.

Let me say, most of the other reviews are very accurate. This movie was bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. I too, had liked Russell and Pare "back in the old days" and was very hopeful for them. In my Netflix review, I mentioned that I lost interest in the film and proceeded to wash the dishes and make a sandwich, yet still watching the movie from the kitchen. When I did return to the living room, I was very confused as the last 5 minutes of the film unfolded. I even rewound it to make sure I was not missing anything. This film totally crapped out on how to do a "twist" ending. I suspect that the idea sounded good, maybe the script was intriguing, but the budget was so non-existent that sets were really lacking. And yes, I suppose all those "bad sets" were an effort to give the viewer a clue. All it told me was "low budget."

Anyway, the reason I came here, was because over the weekend I saw a review of Shutter Island, and with what the reviewers were saying, or not saying, lead me to believe that Shutter Island is the same deal, only with a budget 50 to 60 times more! (Actually I have no idea how much Dark World cost, but I HOPE they didn't spend more than 1 million!)

So, that being said, I kinda thought that if someone reworked the script a bit, got a bigger budget for a better "look" (whether that meant a better scenic designer, or better post coloring, just someone with a vision,) they could remake Dark World into a passable product. Now it sounds like Shutter Island is doing that. Looks like they got the vision right, but the scripting could still be off. Money can't buy everything, but it should in Hollywood!

PS My 2 star rating is for Russell and Pare.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
La Antena, an audacious film by Argentine director Esteban Sapir, succeeds both as a reinvention of the silent movie genre and a gripping cautionary tale. The setting is a city in thrall to mindless television, its people deprived of the power of speech except for a solitary and mysterious screen presence known simply as The Voice. In a bid to cement their grip on power the marvellously villainous duo of television mogul Mr. TV and mad scientist Dr. Y set out to kidnap The Voice and turn her unique talent towards their own dastardly ends. It is up to a young family and The Voice's nameless, eyeless son to stop this evil scheme. The result is a roller coaster of a story that is bewildering on occasion but never less than engrossing.

This is a silent movie that wears many of its influences on its sleeve; the overt references to silent movie greats such as George Melies and Fritz Lang will be readily apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity of their work. But more subtle references and symbolism lie behind such tributes. I particularly like the fact that Mr. TV and his henchman drive around in typical 1930s gangster cars, drawn from the decade when the silent movie era died away and a very different industry began to emerge.

La Antena mines the clichéd plot devices and theatrical over-acting common to so many silent films, albeit in a very knowing and humorous way. It is the astonishing visual style of La Antena that really sets it apart from the movies that it pays homage to. From the hypnotic TV logo to the menacing hilltop transmission station, this film abounds with dazzling visual inventiveness that is the rival of a Studio Ghibli animation  and all this using real actors and handmade sets.

Moreover, though the style is often intentionally corny and theatrical, this is still an unsettling, provocative and emotional picture. The use of religious symbolism throughout La Antena lends added resonance to the struggle between the TV Empire and the waning power of words. At the same time, many of the most powerful images are original ones, including the hypnotic swirl of the television sets and the nightmarish TV food factory.

I hate to end this review on a sour note, but I feel that the English-language release of La Antena is let down by the subtitles. The original Spanish subtitles are used to great effect, with much playing around with words on screen. However, the English-language subtitles that accompany the original dialogue are frustratingly incomplete, with omissions and mistakes at times leaving the viewer to piece things together for themselves. La Antena is nevertheless a striking piece of cinema; a visually breathtaking experience that displays great energy and humour whilst narrating a powerful cautionary tale.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.

I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.

Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
That's what I kept asking myself during the many fights, screaming matches, swearing and general mayhem that permeate the 84 minutes. The comparisons also stand up when you think of the one-dimensional characters, who have so little depth that it is virtually impossible to care what happens to them. They are just badly written cyphers for the director to hang his multicultural beliefs on, a topic that has been done much better in other dramas both on TV and the cinema.

I must confess, I'm not really one for spotting bad performances during a film, but it must be said that Nichola Burley (as the heroine's slutty best friend) and Wasim Zakir (as the nasty, bullying brother) were absolutely terrible. I don't know what acting school they graduated from, but if I was them I'd apply for a full refund post haste. Only Samina Awan in the lead role manages to impress in a cast of so-called British talent that we'll probably never hear from again. At least, that's the hope. Next time, hire a different scout.

Another intriguing thought is the hideously fashionable soundtrack featuring the likes of Snow Patrol, Ian Brown and Keane. Now, I'm a bit of a music fan and I'm familiar with most of these artists output, but I didn't recognise any of the tracks during this movie (apart from the omnipresent "Run"). B-sides, anyone? We get many, many musical montages which telegraph how we're suppose to feel. These are accompanied by such startlingly original images as couples kissing by a swollen lake and canoodling in doorways. This is a problem, as none of the songs convey the mood efficiently, and we realise the director lacks the ability to carry the emotional journey to the audience through storytelling and dialogue alone.

The ending is presumably meant to be just desserts, as everybody gets their comeuppance and there is at least one big shock in store.. But I remained resolutely unmoved because the script had given me no-one to root for. It's not enough to tackle a hot-button issue, you have to actually give us a plot that hasn't already been done to death and individuals who are more than window dressing. As it stands, this film is a noble failure, with only the promising lead actress and a few mildly diverting punch-ups to save it from the bin. 4/10. Must try harder..
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN DOES THE HURTING STOP? That's what I said somewhere between the beginning and that other part of the movie that really sucked. This film nearly sapped all the life out of me and I have sat through some really bad movies. Coming from a true Puppet Master fan, I would expect to hear myself say this, but it's true. The plot is inane, the special effects awful, the sound track the most benawl, infernal tootling I have ever heard. Oh! I almost forgot about the acting, it was so bad that I forgot it was there at all, nuff said. The only redeeming factor in the film is the puppets themselves they truly are the stars and could out-act all but Guy Rolfe himself(he is the puppetmaster)and although you can see their wires and strings, they carry me throughout the painful start to finish of Retro-Puppet Master. In closing, PM7 is recomended for true fanatics who happen to be masochists.

Roach



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

negative
We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often. 

The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed. 

The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.

I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was my very first "Bollywood" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through "Ghost World". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But "Something for everyone" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.

The ultra-groovy musical dance number "Jaan Pehechaan Ho" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules! 

On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:

if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice

those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain

whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there

My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if "Liberace threw up"!! Way fun.

Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5

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

negative
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.

(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.

ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.

The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.

Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.

Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!

He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.

Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, "You deceived me," when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, "We're not married," to which Sam replied, "You think I'd believe that?" 

Idiotic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I love so much about this movie: the music, the cinematography, the acting, the story, and all the Mormon clichés. Just because they are clichés doesn't mean they aren't true! This is not perfect, it is a movie after all. Though excommunications are held in well-lit rooms with nice big desks and chairs, it was totally appropriate to portray it as the dark, cold scene they did in this film. I also liked the scene with the angel waiting at the bus stop, smoking a cigarette. I thought that was so cool. I mean, I believe that angels do watch over us. What is one supposed to do while waiting? Smoking is a way some people pass the time while waiting. I loved the irony cause Mormons make such a deal about smoking. I saw this movie 7 times in theaters in Salt Lake, and cried every time! It blows me away. And I've watched it 3 times on video now and it still makes me cry every time. I would jump at the chance to see it again on a big screen. I hope the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake will bring it back regularly at General Conference time, as a cult movie (pun intended, but no offense intended).
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying  18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free  I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd "john" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day  was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia  wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things  gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc  on a shoestring budget.