cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

All in all, this is a movie for kids. We saw it tonight and my child loved it. At one point my kid's excitement was so great that sitting was impossible. However, I am a great fan of A.A. Milne's books which are very subtle and hide a wry intelligence behind the childlike quality of its leading characters. This film was not subtle. It seems a shame that Disney cannot see the benefit of making movies from more of the stories contained in those pages, although perhaps, it doesn't have the permission to use them. I found myself wishing the theater was replaying "Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger too", instead. The characters voices were very good. I was only really bothered by Kanga. The music, however, was twice as loud in parts than the dialog, and incongruous to the film.

As for the story, it was a bit preachy and militant in tone. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would go again just to see the same excitement on my child's face.

I liked Lumpy's laugh....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I should know better. I've seen too many of Rob Lowe's early work to expect anything good from this movie, even if it is about Hockey.

Here we have, yet again, another tired sports theme. Kid has potential for greatness, has the apparent to go far if his cocky attitude doesn't screw things up. And, boom, he comes out of it as that helluva player kind of champion. Is that all that can be said of sports movies? Surely, there must be other feats that athletes undertake.

Nonetheless, this movie has got to be one of the biggest cheeseballs. Everybody's interactions are just downright silly, and not in a stupid-funny kind of manner. And I can't think of any ancillary qualities that could enliven my position. Not the actors (certainly not Swayze who plays Lowe's reluctant mentor), not the story, not the music, and very little from the skating sequences. 

Normally, I'm a sucker for 80s movies, even if they do tend to be a little fishy (i.e. North Shore, the Karate Kid), but this doesn't even make for good 80s trash. For a good 80s sports movie, check elsewhere. There's plenty of them out there.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.

Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.

To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.

Too bad.
it's a beautiful film.the scenes are well pictured.Anne Revere 's dialogs are really well written and inspiring,the philosophy and thoughts that this film gives and the things it teaches makes it great and wonderful.

Mickey Rooney is great in the movie and his role goes through lot of emotional turmoil as the film progresses.

Elizabeth Taylor looks very pretty,her scenes in the film are inherently poetic,the way camera follows her and the way the music make you feel make every scene of her ethereally beautiful.

this movie has great spirit and a beloved cherished classic.

Angela Lansbury is quite amusing in her role though unrecognizable if you have seen her in role of 'm' in 'the Manchurian Candidate'.

Donald Crisp has done his father's role full justice and the script provides him with ample stuff to justify his role.

its a very nice film and a must watch for family and children an evergreen Christmas favorite.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This was probably intended as an "arty" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**)
We saw La Spettatrice last night @ the Chicago International Film Festival & we were both immensely moved by it. This is a haunting tale of loneliness & missed connection in which the longing for intimacy conflicts with our fear of revealing too much about ourselves to another. The three leads (Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo) are all excellent and the dynamic between them is very surprising. 

After all the movies which devalue older women, it's wonderful to see Flavia (who is a law professor at a university in Rome) presented as beautiful & sensual as well as seductive & powerful. We're conditioned to believe that when a younger woman enters 'the mix,' the older woman will become jealous of the younger woman, the man will leave the older woman for the younger woman, etc, etc. In this film, however, emotional truth is considerably more complex. Highly recommended.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is an excellent movie and I would recommend it to everyone. Mr. Drury's acting is top notch as it always is and he blends well with the other actors in the movie. Can't give away any of the suspense or drama found in the movie. Hell to pay is a must see movie!!! The plot was very suspenseful. I would watch this movie over and over again because it has all the elements of a great western movie. It was very authentic in how they displayed the components dealing with this movie which includes the guns, horses, and clothing. The soundtrack is enjoyable and adds flavor to the movie. James Drury has the right touch when picking out a movie to be involved with. This is a another winner for the western genre. !!!!!
The A-team is still repeating every day on Dutch television (RTL7, around 1800hrs) and I still watch it! I don't like the A-Team... I absolutely adore them!! It is just great to see Justin chasing the former members of A-Team. Brings back memories from the old days, when I was young an sweet. I would have given you a 10 for excellent, but Justin looks like he is chasing the former A-Team members all by himself. Of course, that is the only bad thing on this documentary. Too bad Justin does not look for Melinda Culea ("Amy A. Allen"). But it is great to see Mr. T. back into action. Too bad for him, he does not show up at the party, at the end. But that party is too short to laugh again and to see everybody in action again.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like "Meatballs"? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote "Little Darlings" line by line? Or "Whitewater Summer"?

This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble "Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz." Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, "I'm Wudy da Wabbit." (He doesn't get it). "It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter." I mean, this stuff is classic!

Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie has an outstanding acting, by Marilia Pêra, and a stunning dicretcion by the argentine Hector Babenco. This is, in my opinion, the best Brazilian movie ever made. The movie was filmed with child from the 'favelas' , the brazilian ghetos. The children weren't actors and were casted by Babenco in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The story is about the criminal children that are arrested in the correctional prison, that looks much worse than Alcatraz. The children are constantly raped and beaten by the policeman. Unfortunately this is not purely fiction, in Brazil it does happen till today. A must see for those who like violent movies. But take your mother off the room, because it is a hard movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

If you live in the suburbs, are relatively well off financially, and do not really have much contact with the city life of england, then this is the comedy for you. Not something a mass audience would go for, but if you're like these characters they show you'll love it to pieces. Overall this is a comedy that the snobs at the BBC will sit back and laugh at for their pleasure and only a select few of the publics. Comparing it to BBC Comedys like Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, and other classics, this series tends to drift away from the BBC's regular product to the audience and deliver to somewhat of a folk culture.
Well, I have been to a British University, in fact I went to the one in this very film, and it was nothing like that. This is a horrible, badly made and acted film. Worst thing is, it could have been really good, if they bothered to spend more that 12p on it, in fact if it really wanted to represent true British Students it should off acted like one and took out a 15 thousand pound loan. It says nothing about Uni life, where was the bush diving, the tea drinking till 4am, the endless chats about group dynamics??? Where was the diversity and fun? Maybe I'm just being romantic, but I don't remember Fresher's Week being that awful, and I'm teetotal. And in the end the question still remains...a bed or a wardrobe?
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.

The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.

The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.

The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).

The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.

The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! 

We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Unlike http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098238/ this movie provides no background information. We are shown a snapshot of the fall of Danton, his mock process and execution but, unless one studied the revolution quite extensively, it is difficult to understand where characters come from ( Fouquier-Tinville, Philippeau, Desmoulins, Robespierre... ) and thus to appreciate them for what they are: Danton and Joe Blobb could be the same person to the viewer. For example Robespierre & Desmoulins were close friends since their youth, and this explains how Robespierre acts. Those who know the facts, though, will easily orient themselves and appreciate this good movie with actors delivering solid acting, no useless subplots and good reconstruction of the times. Desmoulins and Danton are the best characters, but all do a good job, even the 'demented' Saint-Just portrayed as sort of psychopath. 'Terreur' was a period of massacres whose importance hasn't been fully documented and that -for the most part- were driven by ambition, greed and the settling of personal disputes, fed to ignorant sans-culottes as the next epochal step against tyranny.

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

positive
I saw this at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.

The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.

Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.

Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.

The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.

I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.

And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.

1/4
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I had to watch this one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the "best Canadian film." When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie is beautiful in many ways: the plot, the depth of the characters, the stunning photography and acting, the kolossal-like scenes of battles (no computer graphics here, just thousands of people). Someone said the story has something to do with the Sheakespearian tragedies. I find some connections with the Greek tragedy tradition, too.

The emperor, extraordinarily acted, struggles between power and love, but he is forced (for the greater good, for the will of his ancestors) to choose the power (and the loneliness, the hate of his subjects and kins) as his destiny. He, like Creon in Antigone, was a good guy before becoming emperor. Once gained power, he has to be merciless and cruel (with innocent children, his mother, his father, etc.) to defend and expand the empire. Entrapped by power he becomes a monster. Overall, The Qin emperor is a majestic Greek tragedy figure.

The assassin evolves towards a different direction: from pure evil to heroism and morality. Even this character is forced towards his destiny by love and by his new ethics. This character is really unforgettable, too.

Lady Zhao, a wonderful Gong Li, is the uncorrupted morality, nor by power or love or hate. She is morality against power, somehow like Antigone. Her conspiracies (for and against the emperor) have always a moral rationale.

In conclusion, a wonderful movie. If you love cinema and you want to try Chinese movies you can start here.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I absolutely loved every minute of this film. Jack Black and Kyle Gass most definitely brought the thunder in this epic tale of friendship, hard rocking and destiny.

Filled to the brim with unnecessary swearing in every sentence, toilet humour and the general rule breaking attitude, this movie is a must see for the hard core tenacious D fans of the world.

We follow the journey of young Jables (Jack black) and Kage (Kyle Gass) as they try and recover the pick of destiny, to win the open-Mic night, and to become the greatest band on the planet. The duo have to overcome obstacles such as a room full of lasers, a man with one leg and the devil to accomplish their task. I'll let you see whether they make it or not.

The soundtrack itself is awesome enough, and now we see the D in person, making the experience even more magical. A must see for anyone who calls themselves a tenacious D fan. Watch out for the inside jokes from the first album!
This is probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. " Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.

P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.

But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).

Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the "proper" Disney films have.

Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.

I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.

Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.

4/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"House Calls" is a wonderful romantic comedy that can best be described as "how they used to make them." It stars Walter Matthau (in one of his best roles) as a recently widowed doctor who goes out on the dating scene again and hits paydirt as he seems to have a different woman every night. He then meets hospital patient Glenda Jackson and soon develops a relationship with her. But it's one that will be severely tested as she informs him she is a one man woman and expects him to be a one woman man.

This is a sweet, very funny film also starring Art Carney as the senile hospital administrator and Richard Benjamin as Matthau's friend and fellow doctor. It's a must see for any Matthau fan or any fan of light comedy.

You won't be disappointed.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I hate to admit it, but I didn't find it to be one of Hitchcock's best but nonetheless a riveting, climatic thriller. In a remake of Hitchock's 1934 movie of the same title, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart)  the man who knows too much - and his wife Jo McKenna (Doris Day) are holidaying in Morocco with their son Hank (Christopher Oslen) when there is a case of mistaken identity and caught up in the web of an assassination plot. The conspirators go to extreme lengths to prevent them from interfering with their plot: kidnapping their beloved Hank.

I found it surprising that Doris Day, who I usually associate with Rock Hudson comedies, was cast in a Hitchcock film. As I was watching it, I soon realized that this was more of a family film compared to Hitchcock's other works (example: Psycho) and she had singing ability needed to pull off "Que Sera Sera", which she did beautifully. She was well cast as herself and James Stewart had chemistry, which helped make the couple believable.

In comparison to the great director's other works I believe this isn't as good, but it is still a exceedingly entertaining family thriller/mystery. There is also the added bonus of Que Sera Sera, which turned out to be a smash hit for Doris Day. Well directed, well acted. A fine film.
What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick!

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, "Shoppen" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.
What's an example of a movie review?

I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.
These guys combine low-brow with low-budget. It's glorious.

Look- if you want Bergman, rent "7th Seal" or something. If you want to see gross-out humor and exploitation sex, this is the one.

I think Jane Jensen as Julia makes it all watchable. She can actually act (really well), she's a complete dreamboat, and she doesn't seem to feel above it all.

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

positive
One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me. 

This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture. 

And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in "Bullitt", and surpassing the chase in "The French Connection". I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did "Bullitt" and "The French Connection" as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.

Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I've read some grumbles about the court scenes. These people betray their ignorance. This production went to simply amazing lengths to recreate all aspects of the period in which the story occurred. Courtly manners are something few people outside the court ever see. While the acting may appear highly stylized, it is, in fact, as close a replication as possible of the behavior of individuals in their particular stations as the director could create. The actor's facial expressions are a marvel, particularly the duplicitous Marquis Changxin and the King's mother.

There are, of course, reflections of both Greek and Shakespearian tragedy in the relationship between the king, his parents and his love. The juxtaposition of the king transforming from good to bad and the assassin from bad to good provides much food for thought on the evolution of an individual's nature. This movie would provide much to ponder in a college course on the humanities.

At the same time, it almost rushes along, even in the slowest scenes heading towards an inexorable denouement. One suspects the involvement of large portions of the troop movements, which were quite awesome. It makes The Lord of the Rings battle scenes pale by comparison. Few directors have the ability to literally field thousands of humans on the field of battle just for art's sake. I recall one scene in which at least 30,000 troops can be seen moving across a huge plain. The logistics for such a shot would have been staggering.

I could go on... but simply, I can't recommend this film highly enough.
Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.

Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.

Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US. 

This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.

Perhaps Shadows is one of the less "beautiful" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets.

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

positive
Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here? 

Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas. 

Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!

"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! . Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add). Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly? Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith. I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer. Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate!

Only flaw in this movie: In your dreams, baby! This was flawless.

Only minor complain: The director failed to star Mithun Da as well. 

I won't ruin it for you any further. Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha, Indra the tiger and Sivaji.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Geologist realizes a big earthquake is coming but no one will listen. Whats worse is his father in law had predicted the 1923 Tokyo disaster and he's been called unworthy to be his successor. Of course the big one comes and Tokyo is knocked flat.

A poorly dubbed Japanese film that is pure soap opera for the first half. The second half- after the earthquake destroys a model city its an escape drama. There are some nice moments but the film wastes them either by undercutting the action by too many poor miniatures or by having people do unreal things. Hokey and not very good it has an ending you won't believe...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Remarkably well done, but under-recognized because of limited distribution. Has big-studio feel, understands the horror genre, speeds along with clever plot twists and never stumbles. Could have been a college cult classic, if it had ever gotten the opportunity.
This movie was very good. I really enjoyed it. Tom McCamus' performance was excellent and very believable as the consumptive son Edmund. I also enjoyed the set design (house) and the costumes.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling "Did anybody lose this?" as he holds up a prosthetic leg...

1/2 a star out of ****
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

In spite of many positive reviews this is a very slow film with three essentially good actors improvising the most banal dialog you will ever hear. This is another road movie that really goes no where. The camera frequently goes out of focus and the constant panning in some of the over long scenes is annoying.

The three characters are attractive but note likable. The cast also sets what must be an intergalactic record for the use of the tired word "dude". (Even Howard Stern has abandoned this tired pesudo pronoun).

The three primary actors and one supporting actor show great promise. They are clearly comfortable and bravely allow themselves to be depicted as shallow and even goofy. The character actors all seem as they are plucky amateurs who generously volunteered to speak a few lines.. Indeed they all physically fit their roles well.

All in all a dull 90 minutes that seems more like an eternity. This is among my ten worst films of all time.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that "it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion". This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.

I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.

It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative