cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..
This movie has a look and feel of many "Fresh" directors (closeups and focus on the emotions being experienced by the actors). The point of the film was presented from many angles and expressed well by the relatively inexperienced cast. The point being "Have faith in Jesus Christ and the Morman Church" Oh, and if you read or hear anything contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, it is just Haterade. (Fuel for Hatred)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Who the heck is responsible for this terrible mangling of one of my favorite books? This is just terrible. terrible acting, terrible script. The story isn't even close to its old self - and what were they thinking? Robin Williams, for Gosh's sake! This really defies description. Don't see this. Seriously, don't. Not even for laughs. Especially not if you're a fan of the book. This might just be the worst movie adaptation ever - everything is disjointed and scrambled - the characters which are important in order to understand the sequence of events are seriously marginalized, and every potentially interesting location from the book has been changed (example: Vienna - New York) into something profoundly uninteresting.

For those who haven't read the book - it's basically a fictional biography about a writer growing up, exploring his writing and so on. His mother writes an autobiography which is hailed (despite her protests) as a sort of feminist manifesto. The book is well-written, engaging, and long. Its prose is simply beautiful.

This movie, on the other hand, is about Robin Williams once again telling us to seize the day.
Low-budget but memorable would-be shocker that instead emerges as theater of the bizarre. Vulnerable, naive nurse Charlotte Beale comes to a secluded mental hospital and is completely unaware that the only sane people have been murdered, despite the red flags that are constantly being raised all around her. 

The lack of a decent budget really gives the filmmakers little more to go on than a sense of style, as well as a cast of wacky characters. The pleasures of this film don't come from the film's shocks, which are fairly tame, but from the weird atmosphere. First we have the delusional woman who thinks her baby doll is real. There's also an axe-murdering judge, a shell-shocked war veteran, and old Mrs. Callahan is like everybody's daffy elderly grandmother gone amok. A young patient named Allyson gives the term "nymphomaniac" new meaning. A big guy named Sam is just a little slow after a botched lobotomy, and Jennifer vaults suddenly between catatonia and violent outbursts. The only other sentient person in the place seems to be Dr. Masters, but does she have a secret?

"Don't Look in the Basement" is a great example of low-budget exploitation films. There isn't much plot going on, but the cheapness works for the movie. Several cast members turn in memorable performances, particularly Betty Chandler and Annabelle Weenick, and the way the director adds little weird details to the movie can really stick with you.

The scene between Allyson and "the telephone man" is a classic for all time, and especially delicious are the facial expressions of Dr. Masters when she begins to go over the edge near the finale of the movie. Brownrigg also makes great use of the cheap soundtrack, with several musical cues really evoking the characters that they accompany. My favorite cue is the "crazy" cue, a sitar that twangs whenever one of the patients does something pathological.

Also wonderful is the way that Charlotte herself plunges into hysteria at the climax, with the patients revealing that Dr. Masters is simply another inmate, and then suggesting that CHARLOTTE is also a patient who is being allowed to act out her delusions (she certainly has a tenuous grip on reality, why else would she not question the ominous lack of phone service or outside contact?). The scene where Charlotte manages to finish off the barely-alive Dr. Stephens with a toy boat has to be one of the greatest moments in low-budget horror. Yes, "Don't Look in the Basement" could very well be the "American Beauty" of Grade Z trash.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is the worst of the toxie series by far. The acting in Tokyo is horrible and you can understand them about half the time. The major problem with this film is all the sudden changes from the original. Like there's a different girl friend of toxie's in this one or it might be the same character just with a different name and played by a different chick. Why is this film made like a Disney movie. After about fifteen minutes it starts getting good with the gore and all. There's 2 awesome killings then the movie goes straight to poop. After the films 20 minutes are up the film is bearly entertainment. H*LL IT'S BEARLY WATCHABLE. Well unless your drunk then don't watch this film. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: On Humphrey Bogart's first trip to Hollywood, he got his first leading man role in this B picture Love Affair. The first thing you ought to realize is that this film has absolutely nothing to do with the classic Love Affair later in the decade with Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne or the two remakes that followed. It's not half as good any of those films.

In fact Bogey is second billed to Dorothy Mackaill as a spoiled heiress who finds out she's been living her extravagant lifestyle courtesy of her late father's best friend and financial adviser Hale Hamilton. It comes as quite a shock to Mackaill. She considers a show business career as a way for an income.

Bogart is a test pilot who is also an aeronautical engineer and he's designing an ultimate airplane motor and is looking for investors. Mackaill is willing to do it, besides she likes what she sees in Bogey.

Considering the cynical roles that Bogart later made a specialty, it's a bit disconcerting to see him as this highly moral and self righteous character in Love Affair. The part doesn't wear well on him.

Love Affair is your average B program second feature, nothing terribly special about it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.

It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.

It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.

It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.

What a movie!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.
How to summarize this film ? it is simply impossible. Why you should see it ? maybe for the story, very probably for the actors (Giorgio, Catherine...), above all for the universe and the poetry. This is a tale. Sad, sometimes dark, but a tale. I LOVE this film !!!! Just waiting for the DVD !! Thank you mister Boutonnat.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Not since Bette Davis's 1933 vehicle "Ex-Lady" have I seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was! Most of the bum rap "Atoll K," a.k.a. "Utopia," a.k.a. "Robinson Crusoeland," a.k.a. "Escapade" has got over the years has come from the horror stories Stan Laurel told of its production. Given that he suffered a stroke during filming, looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two-shot of them together you'd never guess that Laurel survived Hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health), one can understand why Laurel didn't think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. Yes, it's flawed: the cheapness of the production shows through, the dubbing is awful and Laurel and Hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. But it's still genuinely funny, and Léo Joannon's story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian, sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like Chaplin or the Marx Brothers but never from Laurel and Hardy. The film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the Ealing Studios' classic "Passport to Pimlico," made just a year earlier, is pretty obvious) and for integrating the Laurel and Hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they'd used before. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly better than the eight dreary ones for Fox and MGM they'd made in the early 1940's. I suspect only the film's technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti-establishment baby-boomer youth the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup" acquired in the late 1960's/early 1970's.

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

positive
Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot.
Determine the sentiment:

I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...

The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.

Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.

2/10... would have been 1/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.

The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.

The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.

All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
O boy, was this really bad.

I saw this on videotape.

In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.

One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a "news flash" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?

The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.

Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.

The ending is really horrible too.

The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time.
Write a positive movie review.

.... could it be that ITV wouldn't want to release this absolute classic because it would show up their current series of Mike Bassett for what it is? When discussing Mike Bassett with some work colleagues I mentioned Bostock's Cup as being a far superior offering and was surprised to find that I seem to be the only person in my entire office that has actually seen it. This can't be right for a film that has got to be the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Let's face it, ITV don't have the greatest recent record for producing comedy so you would think that they would jump at the chance of at least repeating something which is genuinely funny. Perhaps if it could be combined with a lucrative telephone competition of where we think the coach driver will go next then they might be interested.

Come on ITV, there are still some of us out there who would like to watch original, quality comedy/drama. Do the decent thing thing. Repeat it then get it out on DVD.
This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.

Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.

A complete washout.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm giving this film 9 out of 10 only because there aren't enough specific scientific references to the amount of energy it takes to produce food to satisfy the science haters. mdixon seems to believe the admittedly biased commentators are making this stuff up, but even an elementary understanding of resources and the laws of thermodynamics will indicate that at the very least, they are on solid scientific ground when they state that we cannot continue to depend on oil, we must transition to different types of energy, and do not have a plan that will replace the amount of energy we get from oil. Other civilizations have refused to face the facts of life, and have perished. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" which is a popular book, or any elementary Ecology or Earth Science textbook and you can verify the basic premise of this movie. Go ahead, fiddle while Rome burns!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:

Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results 

Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely " British films " . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time 

Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED 

Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clichéd stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.
This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: "If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here." Thorne is also called "nigger lover" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete "The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are." The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.

The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.

Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.

In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?

It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.

I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.

This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Barbara Stanwyck is a sheer delight in this wartime comedy, about a sailor invited to spend Christmas with a popular magazine writer's family, at her farm in Connecticut. The problem is she has no husband, baby, or farm, as she writes about in her column, and she can't even cook; her wonderful recipes being provided for her by her good friend " Uncle" Felix, owner of a Hungarian restaurant in New York City.

Things get even more complicated when her strict publisher boss invites himself along for Christmas. A scheme is hastily planned, with her stuffy fiancé providing an actual Connecticut farm, neighbors providing a borrowed baby, and a quick wedding planned when the publisher isn't looking. But when the handsome young sailor arrives on Christmas Eve, romantic complications ensue, as the supposedly married author falls like a ton of bricks for the nice guy Navy man and vice versa.

This is a charming, warm film that deftly balances humor with sentiment and is a wonderful showcase for Barbara Stanwyck to display her considerable comedic talent, aided by such marvelous character actors as Sydney Greenstreet, Una O'Connor, S.Z.Sakall, and many others. A Christmas night dance at the town hall is a toe tapping delight to see, and the unexpectedly sweet and feminine side of Stanwyck is a wonderful surprise, for viewers who have seen her mainly as tough, bitchy women in femme fatale roles. Truly a wonderful film that has stood the test of time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
You don't have to be a tamilian to appreciate this gem of a movie.I don't know a word of tamil and saw this movie only because a friend had recommended it to me.Understanding a movie without knowing the language is quite tough but I could make out the story because the lead actors (and actresses)emoted really well.And the little girl was really cute (she wasn't irritating like child actors in most hindi movies).The story is really touching and hats off to Mr. Ratnam for trying something different.The relationship between the parents and their children are shown quite realistically.(I could identify with the characters in the movie).It was alltogether a movie that will remain in my heart forever and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to my friends.Also the songs are just out of this world!They were beautifully and meaningfully picturised.If only I could understand the right meaning of the lyrics:(
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

"Delusion" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)
I was mighty impressed with Nurse Betty all the way through. It has a great ensemble of characters, an origional plot, and an ending I shoulda seen coming but didn't and pulls at your heart strings.

If theres any one thing about this movie that got me the most it was Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock's interaction. These two are great and it warms my heart to see Rock isn't going to do crappy Big Hollywood fare like Lethal Weapon 4 for the rest of his life. Freeman is as always the man, really there shouldnt be any need to critique his work anymore. Hell, Kiss the Girls was watchable with him in it.

Renee Zellwegger does the best she can with her role, and Kinnear is good as her obession.

Sweet movie with a nice touch of gratuitous violence in it to satisfy the bloodlust of the male. 9 outa 10



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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.
I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.

But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.

And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.

Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.

But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').

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

negative
Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).

However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.

Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.

The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.

The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.

Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film for me and my wife is more entertaining than all the bloc-buster violent thriller/mystery/murder movies that abound. It is about real people making the best of their lives. They just happen to be Indian and the main characters are in law enforcement. The realistic acting and the great scenery more than make up for the slightly implausible plot. The sound track is by BC Smith, who also did the soundtrack for Coyote Waits, and is great. Adam Beach plays a tribal policeman who is a little bit accident prone and Wes Studi is the stoic consummately professional detective. There are many other fine either supporting or cameo roles by Graham Greene, Tantoo Cardinal, etc. We have also seen Coyote Waits, another adaptation of a Hillerman novel, and we greatly enjoyed it too.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.

It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.

Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.

I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?

Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A man is builing a hotel with a partner. He finds out the hotel is over-insured. Things just get worse. This film has a huge mumber of scenes. They must have been put together in someones' sleep. It jumps around from place to place. It does not stay focused on anything for very long. The ending starts on christmas morning with a hotel fire. It then cuts to a night scene of that fire and then cuts back to day time. The DVD sound track is horrible. It takes a fair plot and turns into the worst film I have scene in a long time.
To begin with its a rip off of the Japanese film Battle Royal except it's missing the one thing that made BR unique, balls. It's a weak satire at best and as far as the real TV phenomena it attempts to comment on well everyone knows how warped and stupid that genre can be so why was this film made?

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

negative