cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show "Batman" at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like "Bat-Mite" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised.

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

positive
This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I don't recall a film which so deftly shows the emotional destruction of war, as mirrored in one single marital relationship. The focus of the film is the union between Ullman and Von Sydow--the two are in every scene. Through the course of the film, they experience a role reversal--one has the strength of survival and the other is reduced to emotional escapism through dreams. Both will lose a measure of humanity, but one to a greater degree than the other. The characters and the viewer go through periods of fluctuation in regards to closeness--the camera pulls out and away, sound disappears, words are lost, only for the camera to return to painterly closeups of its facially expressive stars. The confusion and fluctuation may make this film hard for some viewers, but this is all purposeful under the master hand of Bergman. I think the use of a "fake" war makes the film timeless, as relevant today as ever before, and by focusing on the human relationship through war, makes the film relevant to everyone. The pair could be anyone. The film is not grounded in place or time, but rather in emotion. A unique and effective war film, unlike any other. Bergman's films are virtuosic in presenting human relationships--that he would bring this to a war film is masterful.
A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)

Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)

The plot keeps you wondering throughout.

The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)

Definitely worth watching.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Watching this series will probably make you feel like how our parents felt when watching Star Trek for the first time.

This series has it all. The kind of stories that makes you forget how to blink, the kind of characters that makes you want to jump into the TV to join the action, and the kind of atmosphere that makes your hair curdle in awe and endless admiration.

In short, we start out with John Chrichton, an astronaut, who gets shot into a wormhole and ends up with a gang of prisoners on the run from the badguys in black, ironically known as Peacekeepers.

Other colorful characters consists of D'argo, big dude with a short temper and a sword/laser-rifle. Aerun Sun, former peacekeeper and a Ph.D in buttkicking. Zotoh Zhan, who's a plant. No really, she is. She's also a priest, but with a mean streak. There's also Dominar Rygel XVI, an fat lazy bastard who farts helium and generally does more harm than good.

Later in the series we meet the most sexy alien that has ever been on television, namely Chiana. A young and seemingly chronically horny Nebari. She is played by Gigi Edgley, which is a name you should remember.

One of the many things I love about these series is that since John Chrichton ended up in this part of the galaxy by mistake, he keeps giving references to "Real Life". Namely, when John is having a bit of difficulty accepting the fact that he will be frozen as a statue for 80 years, one of his many complaint is that when he returns, Buffy The Vampire Slayer will be dead.

So Frell all the other series, get your Dren together and spend an Ahn on one of these episodes. I can assure you, Sci/Fi as you know it, will change forever.

This series has it all. It's sexy. It's actionpacked. It's hillarious. It's Farscape
Determine the sentiment:

Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I recently was in a stage version of this play. And, on the last day of the run, I was excited to see that it was going to be playing on TV. I stuck a tape in as it was on late at night, and I watched it the next day. I have to say I was very disappointed. The actors in the film made few of the discovers that are in the script. That is understandable as the resersal process is probably different, but it was upsetting to see. A lot of the original script was changed for the movie as well to make it better for the screen, but I am not sure if it helped the movie out at all. I gave this 4 stars only because I know the script and the writing is a lot better than what this movie portrays.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.

So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.
the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London 

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA " uniform " ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come 

This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign 

As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of " The Enniskillen bombing " . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it

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

negative
Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows. 

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.

While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.

Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.

Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...

Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).

Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.

Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!
I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Lackawanna Blues is a very moving film depicting an era filled with varying emotions and characters as seen through the eyes of a young boy. The film clearly supports "it takes a village to raise a child" and reminds of an important time in black history and culture. I gained an incredible amount of respect for Macy Gray as an actress. Her character was a little crazy, yet lovable; clearly we all have known someone like Macy's character. S. Epatha Merkerson is absolutely fantastic as Nanny. I never realized that Epatha was such a great actress. Law & Order never showcased the depth of Epatha's acting abilities like Lackawanna Blues. I was pleasantly surprised and amazed! The music and the characters reminded me of my own childhood...it was a sweet nostalgic walk down memory lane. I truly enjoyed the film and eagerly await the DVD release to add to my collection.
To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With "Heaven Can Wait", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play "Birthday", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century "falls asleep without realizing it", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****

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

negative
A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.

But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.

Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.

In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".

But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.

And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.

This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Predictable, cliche, unbelievable, boring...what else can I say? It's only the caliber of the cast that saves any redeeming qualities of this bloated mess. Oh yeah, and the entertaining end zone antics.

But wait for the eleven o'clock highlights, 'cause the outcome is as predictable as who's going to win the Globetrotters/Washington Generals matchup.

I was well into the second act before I figured out these were supposed to be PRO teams we were watching (all clad in vintage Padres brown). And Cameron Diaz character's imitation of a youthful Georgia Frontiere was ill-conceived on the page. (Not your fault, Cameron. Would you like to go to dinner?)

Enough of this - I'm only on a rant because I was looking forward to this film. Rent THE LONGEST YARD instead.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Imagine spending the summer without your family or friends from school, and meeting new people. Or yet, it's your first time where you're a nobody and the only person you can count on is somebody from camp. "Meatballs" packs lots of comedy in this film. In camp, there's a eccentric counselor(Bill Murray) who knows how the boys and girls can have a good time. Enter a kid named Rudy(Chris Makepeace) who has no one to look up to. He doesn't fit in with anyone, only Tripper can make him have fun. The rest of the can are just as crazy as Tripper. Camp Northstar is an average camp with an above average team. One the other hand Camp Mohawk is an elite camp that has them running for their money. In the basketball game, the Mohawks got pantsed! And in the Olympiad the Northstar teal got the revenge they needed when one of the members take out the saboteur. And Morty(Harvey Atkin), this poor soul can never get himself in gear if he tried. A very, VERY funny comedy, and it's a big keeper I'll say. This movie shows that camp can be fun, if you wanted to be! 5 stars!

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

It's painfully obvious that the people who made this "movie" have never seen such brilliant spoofs as "The Naked Gun" and "Hot Shots". This movie is terrible, and so are the actors. They wouldn't know acting even if it hit them in the face, as I felt like doing while watching this total pile of rubbish.

The movie is stupid and has no humor in it what so ever. I'm SURE that I could make a better movie with my friends. To me it's amazing that a movie can fail this much. Not a single clever or funny line. No trace of intelligence behind it. It's a pathetic movie and I'd like to meet the person who actually likes this movie. Yuck!
What's an example of a movie review?

I've always enjoyed animated ducks for some reason: Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck. Though none of them are as deranged as Duckman. Originally broadcast between 1994 and 1997 Duckman lasted for a total 70 episodes but could easily have gone on forever without becoming stale.

The titular character is a discombobulated, unapologetic slob and pretty much the worst living person in the world. He's a private detective, a widower, a peeping tom, an alcoholic, a sex maniac, a murderer, a (fill in the blank). You name it, Duckman has done it. But who can blame him for being such a slimeball when the world he/we live in is so insane, outrageous and just plain nonsensical? Eric Tiberius Duckman(voiced by the maniacal Jason Alexander) could carry the whole show by himself but when he's surrounded by a bunch of eccentric supporting characters you just know that trouble is just waiting to explode at every opportunity. My favorite has to be Willibald Feivel Cornfed (or just Cornfed Pig), Duckman's incredibly deadpan sidekick who is seemingly talented and highly skilled at everything and is perpetually oblivious to his partner's infinity of vices and incompetence.

The typical plot will involve some bizarre case he'll inevitably blunder through or will revolve around his highly dysfunctional household, though every now and again Duckman's arch-enemy King Chicken (Tim Curry), a sort of Professor Moriarty in fowl form, hatches some diabolical scheme in revenge for being bullied in high school.

Since I was a teenager this has been my absolute favorite animated show, better than The Simpsons, Family Guy and even King of the Hill. Nothing will ever surpass it. There never was, or will be, anything quite like Duckman ever again. The level of satire, observational humor and writing is so sharp it's deadly and the animation is done in that unique Klasky/Csupo style (anyone who has seen Rugrats will understand). It's a wonderful, highly imaginative and wild world and all with a noirish, 1940s feel.

You can never have too much of this particular bird.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It's a movie with a theatrical message blended with some clever moments. Films like these are the stretching grounds of great actors, they enjoy tossing the ball in open pieces like these. The Angel that wasn't what we see in old books and churches is quite a nice change. It is echoed in Kevin Smith's piece, Dogma, almost in the same slapstick vein.

-=0) Watch this film for a good day after you suck it all in. Could it be that so many films are trying to be complicated that we forget the simple movements of films like this? Possibly one of the most fun pieces I have seen in a while, I ran into this one on VHS in a trash can because someone's basement was flooded this summer, and I grabbed a handful of tapes.

Whether in a trash bin, or on the silver screen, mild comedies like this are fun, you just don't have to tell everyone at a hip nightclub that you like it, or a swank political party. Just keep it for yourself, and I'll bet plenty of people will borrow it from time to time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
For all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

If you want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out "Alien Factor" or maybe "Fiend", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but "Nightbeast", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. "Alien Factor" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06.
Write a negative movie review.

Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.

The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.

On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.
Determine the sentiment:

Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

First of all, before I start my review, I just read every review for 'The Muppet Movie' here and I can't believe that someone could give a negative review to a movie like this. (Fortunately there was only one.) I mean, I can understand how someone may not like 'Star Wars' due to the whole Sci-Fi genre, but to not like a movie starring some of the most lovable puppets in the history of mankind is almost sad. 

Okay, I will step off my soapbox now and review this movie.

'The Muppet Movie' came out when I was seven. All of my friends wanted to see this as their birthday movie, so I think I saw it about four times in the first month in theaters.

As a child many things attracted me to this and all the other Muppet movies & TV shows. The singing was probably the main one. Most of the songs in 'The Muppet Movie' are classics. From "Rainbow Connection" to "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", they're entertaining and thought-provoking.

As an adult I see 'The Muppet Movie' in almost a whole different light. Yes, the things that thrilled me about it as a kid are still there, but it's the little jokes and such that are just plain hilarious.

I mean, when you think about it, Jim Henson is a sick man. 

Kermit is a frog and that is in love with a sweet pig that wears purple gloves and could karate chop you into two pieces. Fozzie is a stand-up comedian bear. Gonzo is a 'whatever' that is infatuated with chickens. Then you have two old guys that heckle, a piano-playing dog, a rock band with a maniac drummer, a Swedish chef that you can't understand and a number of other characters that are just plain eccentric.

Yet, for these reasons and more, Henson has entertained millions of children and adults, giving us all something special to watch and remember him by. 

'The Muppet Movie' will always remain in my heart for many reasons, but I think the biggest one is because it's a movie, unlike a lot of recent children's movies, that I feel comfortable to have my kids watch. Plus, I don't get bored out of my mind with jokes that are dumbed down to my kids' level.

It's a great movie that is sure to be remembered forever.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.

This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.

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

negative
When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really. 

The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

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

positive
It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.

Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.

I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.) 

But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.

Only for die-hard Russell fans.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.

You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is "a bunch of teenagers..." These people are as much "teenagers" as my grandmother.

The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old "teenagers" are standing around and the "monster" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word "monsters" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.

There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.

But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to "cry" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said "tell her...tell her...I love her..." before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.

My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!

PS. Is it any surprise that the one "great" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I would like to submit the following goof.

During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.

From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.

I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.

Turd.
Determine the sentiment:

If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him. 

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This short is one of the best of all time and is proof (just like most of Charlie Chaplin's work) that sound and color are not requirements for quality work. In fact, this cartoon uses (and may have started) some of the gags and devices that became standard in animation in later years, like caricatures of celebrities (including the afore-mentioned Chaplin. While the characters are silent, they do "speak", by use of word balloons, just like in the comics. Given that Felix started out in newspapers as a comic strip, this device is a natural. The atmosphere and style of the short is completely harmonious with that of the comic strip while adding another dimension (literally and figuratively) and makes this short a delight to watch. Well worth taking the time and effort to get. Most highly recommended.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a film that has garnered any interest or praise it has received simply on the merit of being a lesbian interest piece. The performances are mostly emotionless compared to better films in the GLBT interest genre. The entirety of the film's watchable value is garnered through modest suspense over whether and when the partners' family members will say something discouraging about their lesbian relationship. The best element of the film is likely the beautiful New England scenery, although much of the film is set inside. It is hard to envision how any viewer watching this film and not seeking affirmation of their GLBT lifestyle or wishing to see that of others affirmed, even through poorly realized drama, could appreciate Treading Water in any significant way. It is a terrible movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative