cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Good lord.

I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.

This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.

If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable... 

The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby... 

Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.

The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.

I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.

In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...
Why did they have to make such a dreadful adaptation? The whole "Complete Jane Austin" series as a part of Masterpiece Classics looks like a huge disappointment. Characters are totally miscast and there's no chemistry on the screen. The whole thing feels rather rushed. The 1999 movie release based on the same novel seems like a masterpiece compared to this. I really want to forget it. I'm really happy though that "Pride and Prejudice" won't be re-made as part of this project and we will see the iconic and magnificent Colin Firth and Jennifer Elle as protagonists. if you skipped this "Mansfield Park" production consider yourself lucky!

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

negative
My roommate and I have another friend that works at a local Blockbuster Video. He finds truly awful movies for us and tells us about them. One of them was a "Christmas Horror" film starring former professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as a killer Satna Claus. We didn't watch it immediately, but we didn't think there could be anything worse. Apparently, we were wrong. We were shown this slasher film "starring" Ken Shamrock versus a murderous scarecrow. At first we thought Ken would actually BE the killer scarecrow, and that's why we wanted to watch, but he wasn't, and that made the movie even worse. What absolutely RUINED the movie was the teen drama. If you want to save your brain cells from trying to escape from your head, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Tom Clancy uses "Alesandr Nevsky" in his book "Red Storm Rising". In the book, Nevksy was show in theatres across Russia as a prelude to the Soviet invasion of West Germany. I felt I had to check it out. It was excellant! The cinematography was magnificent and storyline incredible. I do not regret watching this movie and added in to my collection.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.

First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.

Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.

Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.

It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.

So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.

On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.

There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)

If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".

7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.
Determine the sentiment:

This particular film was one that I wanted to see in theaters, but never got around to it. When I finally rented it in the summer of 2001 I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD soon after. Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake did a wonderful job with the screenplay and are wonderful to listen to on the audio commentary that is included on the DVD. They did a great job in creating characters that you really care about. I really felt a whirlwind of emotions watching this film including sadness, anxiety and joy. The film also does a great job in showing the importance of family (a rarity in film today), which is a reflection of the director, Bonnie Hunt, based on the comments she made on the DVD. David Duchovny showed me here that there is life beyond Fox Mulder giving a wonderful performance with some pretty poignant scenes. I highly recommend that you give this movie a viewing. I am really thankful to the creators of this film. They have given me a wonderful piece of cinematic viewing that I will recommend to all my friends. I have seen a lot of movies over the years and it is very rare that I come away with such a feeling of satisfaction after watching a film. I will watch this time and time again for years to come. Return to Me reminds me that there are still moviemakers out there that know how to sincerely please their movie audiences. Thanks!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . .
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A great performance by Emily Grace! I stumbled upon this movie while browsing my satellite listings and was curious by the summary of the plot giving by my satellite service provider. I was high entertained and had much compassion for the character "Alice" played by Emily Grace. The story had me guessing in what would happen to Alice and was not predicable. The overall story was refreshing and had some great twists to the supporting characters. The ending of the story ended on a rather fair way. I will purchase this DVD to add to my library. I am a new fan of Emily Grace and I high anticipate in seeing more from her performances.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.

This film can't even pass the "Soap Opera for Dummies" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.

There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow. 

Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional. 

The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.

And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!

Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.

Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.

To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.

None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!

If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.
There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.

Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. "Pull the strings; pull the strings," poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.

For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.

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

negative
Despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century, Erwin Rommel is generally well-regarded by historians and World War II buffs as a gentleman, a soldier's soldier, and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. If only Hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in Africa, the argument goes, things would have gone very differently. And that's probably true. Rommel was, in fact, a military genius, and by all accounts an upstanding, honest man.

But this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near-saint. He does his job, trying to win the war for Hitler, but constantly the Fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders, which Rommel (James Mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never, ever disobeys. Only when it's patently obvious that Hitler is leading Germany to ruin does Rommel think of treason against him; this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film, a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing.

Mason is fine as Rommel, but it's hardly a memorable performance along the lines of, say, George C. Scott as Patton. Of course, Rommel wasn't as colorful as Patton, but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. He occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife Lucie (a young Jessica Tandy, well-cast), but usually Mason is called upon to give a stiff British performance  as if the Brits were trying to claim Rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the Nazis have English accents except Hitler).

Done on the cheap, with any battle scenes swiping stock footage, and the beaches of southern California doubling for Tunisia, there's nothing to particularly recommend this film. A remake could be interesting (I'd pick Ed Harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and, well, Harris can act) were it spiced up a little, but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years; a biography this bland would never cut it any more.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors,

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.

Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".

If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.

The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.

The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.

There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.
Determine the sentiment:

Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.

And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.

To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.

In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I saw it last night and I was laughing out loud for the whole second half of the movie. The whole audience was. Bruce Campbell has made a damn funny movie! I don't want to give anything away, but when the film turns and gets wacky, it gets really wacky. Just one funny scene after another. My hats of to Mr. Campbell and crew for pulling this off on such a tiny budget. Bruce was there to introduce the film and do a Q and A, which was a treat. A lot of the questions people were asking were pretty lame, but Bruce would turn it around on them and be all sarcastic. He was great! Anyway, loved the film. I'll be looking forward to seeing this on DVD later this year. B sure to check it out on the Sci-Fi channel this fall. I highly recommend this one.
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. 

"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.

The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. 

Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. 

Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.

PS The concert was lousy.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was exact. Nice going troops.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.

You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.

1. The missile scene was total stupidity.

2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.

4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.

5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.

However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.

2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.

3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.

4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.

So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4/10.
What's an example of a movie review?

After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great "Queen's Own Buttler" with his song "Garryowen", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?

An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I am having a holiday in hong kong now, and i just saw gen y cops at the cinema.... what can i say... it was sooo cool!!

Everything you could wish for was in it! Basically... just see it if ya can... I'm gonna get my friend to send me the vcd when it comes out....

Only bad thing was the dodgy American style of talking employed by some of the hl actors... like Edison... "What's up my man?!" but it did add even more humour to iy... hhehe

See it... especially if ya like any of the following geners: HKfilm, action, comedy, sci fi! SEEITMAN!! Edison did a good song for it too... so download it... Edison Tse - Heroes
See No Evil With Kane. The Movie Has a great storyline But it just wasn't a Hide my eye's, Scream Out Loud Horror Flick I thought it was going to be from watching the WWE Superstars on Monday Night Raw When The Movie First Came To Theaters. I Did ENJOY The Movie Though I Loved The Story It Played Out.

GREAT MOVIE EXCELLENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PART 2 

It Doesn't Matter If Kane Gets Killed At The End

Or Not They Have Killed Off Other Horror Stars In Every Movie 

They Have Out And They Still Comeback For More So a part 2 would

Be Very Interesting.

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

positive
Finally!!! A good movie made on the most demented serial killer in history. For those less familiar with Ed Gein, he was basically the madman who was known for grave robbing and skinning his victims (which most horror fans ripped off). Shot in a period style that reflects the bleak plains of Wisconsin perfectly, this is easily the most atmospheric horror film yet to depict Gein and his gruesome killings. Kane Hodder (Jason from Friday the 13th series) and Michael Berryman (Hills have Eyes I & II), deliver chilling performances in this serial killer opus that easily leaves behind the lackluster former Gein attempts. So far I'd say this is one of the better horror films released this year (Turistas = 0).

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

positive
I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

FREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Wow. Not because of the 3-D imagery, which at times was used nicely to provide good deep imagery, but what a lame ending! The end of the movie just seems to implode on itself. This film has got to be one of the goofiest movie monsters ever and one of the most pathetic attempts to try to explain it. The misogyny of this film is painful as well. If you are looking for a bad 50s sci-fi film to laugh at (aka 'bot fodder), go for it. Otherwise, look for better films.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, "We blew it." In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.

Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her", before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.

Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses "there's a lot of real crap in there too". Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was "not a good time for women". But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.

The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. "We weren't handsome," muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. "But we were f****** interesting."
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere), a successful surgeon, has his wife leave him, his son (an uncredited James Franco) not respect him and looses a patient he's operating on. Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) has two children and discovers her husband has cheated on her. They both need to get away. She watches over a beautiful oceanside inn in Rodanthe at the same time he books a room. They're all alone together. You can pretty much figure out the rest.

This is what's known as a weepie or a woman's film. It's beautifully shot with a romantic setting and lots of quiet scenes. There's tragedy, romance, more tragedy and an uplifting ending (sort of). The great acting by Gere and Lane helps disguise the fact that this film isn't really about much. Every single bit of the plot is predictable. I rolled my eyes a lot at some of the events. Also it's far too short--I didn't believe the romance between Gere and Lane for a second. If comes out of nowhere and moves VERY quickly. Still the movie does work. The inn itself is absolutely gorgeous and I was in tears by the end along with most of the audience. So it's a predictable but gorgeous movie with some wonderful acting. It doesn't deserve all the criticism it's getting. I give it a 7.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

After having watched Darwin's Nightmare, one must have the impression of Tanzania being a living hell, with its population being quasi-slaves delivering the finest fish to the well-fed Europeans while leaving the fish bones to the starving population. In exchange for the fish they get western-made weapons, which the mainly unemployed population eagerly awaits to use, because being a soldier is their only source of income.

So everything is all dark with trade as the incarnation of evil and source of all misery? Not quite. Fortunately Darwin's Nightmare shows the dark sides only and completely spares the positive aspects. In fact, the documentary hardly tells anything about the economic and ecologic importance the victoriaperch has for the region.

For the countries around lake Victoria the victoriaperch is the second to third most important source of income. The wages in the fishing industry are way above average. Tanzania has banned huge trawlers to secure the jobs of thousands of fishermen. The adjacent states have met agreements to keep fishing on a sustainable level. Cities at the lake are benefiting from the taxes the fishers have to pay for each kilogram caught fish and the taxes on the factories' exports and profits. Furthermore Tanzania has banned exporting the local traditional fish, which still play an important role feeding the local population.

By ignoring those positive signs the documentary deters the badly needed western consumers and investors and thus threatens to aggravate the African's situation.

For further reading I can recommend two articles the German alternative-wing newspaper wrote on the subject: http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/09/02/a0013.1/textdruck http://www.taz.de/pt/2005/03/17/a0151.1/text
As an American fan of The League of Gentlemen I had to wait months to finally see this film when it came out on DVD, but it was well worth the (excruciating) wait. "Apocalypse" is fantastic- funny, freaky, clever as hell, full of in-jokes and cryptic references to the television series; basically everything you'd expect from the Gentlemen.

The plot has already been discussed in other reviews, so I won't bother re-capping it, although I will say when I first read it I was a bit hesitant. Obviously this device- fictional characters entering the real world to confront their makers- has been used before, notably in Wes Craven's underrated "New Nightmare" and Stephen King's "Dark Tower" books (where King himself was a character). The Gentlemen have fun breaking the fourth wall, though, and even add a new element: a second fictional world ("them days"). Soon all three realities have weaved together, and the result is exhilarating: Geoff Tipps being knighted in the middle ages (and trying to court Queen Victoria Wood); the real League of Gentlemen in Royston Vasey, being confronted by characters like Pauline and Dr. Chinnery; David Warner summoning an homunculus outside of Bernice's church. I've heard that some people disliked the "King's Evil" sub-plot, but I found it hilarious, especially Reece's character (who seemed to be channeling Judith the "Witch" from series three).

Speaking of the characters, I was relieved to find that, although Hilary Briss, Geoff, and Herr Lipp were planted firmly in at the film's core, other, more familiar characters were given their due. Bernice's confessional in the beginning was hilarious, hearkening back to the quicker, more sketch-oriented feel of the first series. Pauline and Mickey have cameos (no Ross though- strange), although I would've loved to've seen more of Ms. Campbell-Jones. Papa Lazarou is accounted for, as are Tubbs and Edward. All three are used very sparingly, giving their meager screen time an almost magical feel (and just what the HELL did Papa hack up, like an obscene hairball? According to the DVD commentary, a "wad of greasy pubic hair").

The film looks incredible, but then, what's new? The music, as always, is breathtaking. I was thrilled to hear Joby Talbot's new interpretations of the theme music, and his slight re-working of the majestic, lovely piece that closes out both "Apocalypse" and the last episode of series three.

I have some minor complaints- it would have been nice to see more of the old, familiar Royston Vasey, and I felt the stop-motion creatures (beautiful, by the way) were a bit underused. Both of these issues, however, can be justified by the film's budget, so they're understandable. Still, as much as I loved Bernice's new church, it would have been cool to see the final battle in the high street (the Gentlemen's original vision, according to the commentary).

Overall, "Apocalypse" is astounding, especially if you're a fan of the series. I can't recommend it highly enough. 10/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Clint Eastwood plays a wounded Union soldier found by a girl from a Confederate boarding school and he's taken in and nursed back to health instead of turned over to Confederate soldiers. Seems that the women-folk at this place have ulterior motives. Geraldine Paige, the headmistress, justifies not turning him into the Confederacy and even passes him off as her cousin. Of course when the man gets to feeling better he becomes quite the lady's man and is pretty much making the rounds, but when he gets busted he REALLY gets busted, in fact so badly he gets his leg cut off, but it's for his own good, of course, not out of retribution. Things get carried a bit further though when certain women don't get what they want. I haven't seen this for years and it still has a certain creepiness to it that by today's standards is still pretty strange. Not typical Eastwood at all. If you haven't seen this one it's worth seeing. 8 out of 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from "Slumber Party Massacre" 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent "Slumber Party Massacre." 1/2*
Write a positive movie review.

beautifully constructed, "Traffik" tells the story of narcotics usage and commerce from multiple points of view. From a policeman view, from a politician view, from an addict view, from a smuggler's view, and from a farmer's view. In a carefully contructed storyline, one gets the impression on how everything is inter-related. From beautiful on-location shots in the poppy fields in Pakistan, to downtown Karachi, to the entry points airports of Frankfurt and London, to the delapidated buildings where the smuggling takes place, one sees the massive dimension of narcotics consumption.
This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).

Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles

A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.

Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It's dreadful, but ...

Cat Stevens fans are given the opportunity to see the woman who inspired the lovely song "Lady D'Arbanville" on his album "Mona Bone Jakon", before Cat turned into a fatwa-supporting religious zealot.
A great story, although one we are certainly familiar with. Meryl Streep proves that she is truly the best actress in film today. Very entertaining, and just what I expected. Don't go see this film unless you are prepared to be used and manipulated emotionally, but if you have that expectation, then you will enjoy the ride.....

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

positive