cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This new installment to the Child's Play series has not one scary scene but tons of hilarious jokes such as a stoner witnessing Chucky giveing him the finger and saying "rude f--king doll" and lots of references to the series: "you can kill me but I'll come back. I always come back". The movie's title was probably thought of before the script and was written around it. This is totally different from all other films in the series. It doesn't even have Andy, the central character for all the previous ones. Chucky seems to interfere with characters from another movie, a soap opera about two teens running off together to get married. There is one cool elaborate death scene involving broken glass and water spilling everywhere. The movie is very gory, very funny, and has pop culture references from Martha Stewert to Jerry Springer. DO NOT SEE THIS ONE BEFORE YOU SEE THE OTHER THREE,. It will really ruin the effect since the first one is truly scary. Lots of guilty pleasure fun and silliness. 


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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.

 Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.

 I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This isn't so much a review of A Tale Of Two Sisters as it is a discussion of some of the smaller plot details, so I advise you NOT to read this review if you haven't seen the film, because doing so will absolutely ruin a few surprises for you.

In a way A Tale Of Two Sisters is far from original, at least from a purely superficial aspect - some of its iconography is taken straight from Ring or Dark Water, while the storyline itself (especially what Brendt Sponseller calls the "rubber reality" aspect of the narrative) is reminiscent of films like Fight Club (lead character interacts with someone created in their mind), Mulholland Drive (character creates alternate reality in a psychogenic fugue), as well as other minor aspects of Lost Highway, Jacob's Ladder, and basically every film under the sun dealing with mental illness, plus Amenabar's films (The Others, Abre Los Ojos), Memento (particularly with regards to the torturous nature of memory), et al. Thankfully all these similarities do not detract from the film's overall emotional impact, and I personally found A Tale Of Two Sisters an extremely moving and rewarding experience.

Many people have commented on the "confusing" nature of the narrative, but I personally found the storyline to be fairly self-explanatory, even if it is in part portrayed in a non-sequential manner. The narrative only becomes confusing for some because, midway through the final third, the story switches from a purely subjective setting (ie. Soo-Mi's warped perception of reality) to an objective one, with a flashback at the end explaining the origins of Soo-Mi's nervous breakdown and subsequent mental illness. The shift in emphasis is bound to throw some people off guard, but structurally I found it somewhat reminiscent of aforementioned Mulholland Drive (even though we're not dealing with a character's perception of reality via a dream but instead their own schizophrenic tendencies - something which, in turn, reminded me of another Lynch movie, Lost Highway). To be honest, I don't really regard A Tale Of Two Sisters as a Horror movie as such, but rather a tragic story of a family's breakdown as well as an honest look at a character's mental illness (and I hasten to add that fans of psychoanalytical cinema are going to love this film).

That aside, the cinematography in A Tale Of Two Sisters is incredible and visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this side of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. The performances are also fantastic without exception, and I expect to see more of the four lead actors in the future; not to mention the music, but then east Asian films without a great soundtrack seem to be few and far between these days.

It's very likely that some people will look past the finer artistic points of A Tale Of Two Sisters and simply dismiss it as "yet another Asian horror film", oblivious to its aesthetic beauty and honest psychoanalytical approach. But then each to their own. If you can ignore some of the film's platitudinous aspects and simply take it for what it is at heart, ie. an extremely tragic, heart-breaking story, then I see no reason not to recommend it.
This super creepy Southern Gothic melodrama stars Clint Eastwood as a wounded Confederate officer in the Civil War who's taken in by a rural girls' school and nursed back to health. A weird clash of genders ensues, with the supposedly "dangerous" male falling prey to a batch of seemingly harmless women, who prove themselves to be every bit as brutal as the men waging war on one another at the battle fronts. This is a classic spider and the fly story, but here there's one lone fly and a whole bunch of spiders.

Geraldine Page plays the head mistress of the school, and she gives a characteristically sensational performance. Page was trained as a theater actress, and it shows in all of her performances. No matter what role she played, she always committed herself 100% to it, and never once let herself drop out of character. So it is here, with this lethal spinster, who takes her sexual repression out on this helpless man. Each of the other girls responds to him in her own particular way as well. The two most prominent are the slutty girl who can't wait to throw throw herself at him, and the virginal one (played by who else but the mannered Elizabeth Hartman?) who acts like she would fall over in a dead faint if someone so much as said the word "penis" to her. The schematic Madonna and the whore storyline would seem heavy-handed if the movie didn't keep you so off-kilter and so completely unsure of what was going to happen next.

The most memorable scene in the film for me occurred when the group of women perform an amputation of Eastwood's leg, which has become infected with gangrene. Again, the spider/fly allusion is clear: they hobble him so that it's that much harder for him to escape their web.

A classic chiller. Not a great film, but a morbidly entertaining one.

Grade: A-
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Zeoy101?? Really, this has to be one of the most stupidest attempts to get people in my age group's attention. It's about some preppy girl named Zeoy and her friends that attends boarding school. BORING!!! All she ever does is whine and complain and acts like a spoiled idiot. I remember this show came out in 2005, I was 13 going on 14, and even then I thought it was pointless. The only episode I EVER liked was when the boys hid a camera in the girls dorm. THAT'S IT. Anyway, I just don't understand why Nickel-Oh my bad-Nick feels the need to syndicate this sorry poor excuse for "entertainment". serious this decade is becoming a joke every year and it gets worst and worst. What's with this generation??

Anyway, R.I.P. Nickelodeon 1979-1998?/2005?
WOW I Love this movie. This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies.

Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in broad daylight they obviously don't giva f***

New Jersey Drive is the best hood movie ever. It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second, and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid.

The soundtrack for New Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard through out the movie.

Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a player

If your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack. The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie!

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

positive
Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film. 

Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.

If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Comedy? What's so funny about watching an ugly deadbeat alcoholic attending 6 sessions (by the time I turned it off) of alchoholics anonymous? Set off by a woeful script of grunts and mumbles and drunken slurrings. Served up with lashings of Hollywood's religious "God will Save you" redemption drivel Another Reviewer mentioned the "Sassy dialogue" of Tea Leone - well I managed to watch nearly an hour of this boring film and I still haven't seen any sassy yet - in fact my 80 year old grandmother has more amusing comebacks than Tea's character in this rubbish. Tea is more stony faced and shows less emotion than Keanu - in fact one wonders if she too isn't addicted to something - maybe botox her face is so wooden? Save yourself from being killed with boredom from this film.
Determine the sentiment:

Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.

The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.

So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.

Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.

One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.

When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time.
I first caught up with Jennifer years ago while out of town when it showed up on TV in the middle of the night; I fell asleep before it ended but it stuck with me until I had to track it down. Its appeal is that, though there's not a lot to it, it weaves an intriguing atmosphere, and because Ida Lupino and Howard Duff (real life man-and-wife at the time) display an alluring, low-key chemistry. Lupino plays a woman engaged to house-sit a vast California estate whose previous caretaker -- Jennifer -- up and disappeared. (Shades of Jack Nicholson in the Shining, although in this instance it's not Lupino who goes, or went, mad). Duff is the guy in town who manages the estate's finances and takes a shine to Lupino, who decides to play hard to get. She becomes more and more involved, not to say obsessed, with what happened to her predecessor in the old dark house full of descending stairways and locked cellars. The atmospherics and the romantic byplay are by far the best part of the movie, as viewers are likely to find the resolution a bit of a letdown -- there's just not that much to it (except a little frisson at the tail end that anticipates Brian De Palma's filmic codas). But it's well done, and, again, it sticks with you. Extra added attraction: this is the film that introduced the song "Angel Eyes," which would become part of the standard repertoire of Ol' Blue Eyes.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie easily falls into the category of laughable, if not beyond that to actually insulting. I mean in what alternate universe did the filmmakers and studios think that this film would play? From beginning to end we bombarded with Quaids overacting and ridiculous facial expressions, laying on the "im a loose cannon" act a little thick. Another picking point I had with the movie was the lack of a realistic story of events that would make you grow to connect to a character. I mean in one scene where Lewis is playing in a bar before making it big there is this over the top, just completely absurd bar fight that every citizen in town is apparently a part of. Then Lewis begins to play his rendition of "A whole lot of shaking'" and everyone immediately forgets their differences and begins dancing wildly as if its the most normal thing in the world. These kind of scenes, of which there are numerous, coupled with the lack of depth in any of the characters led me to actual laughter. So all in all this film is not worth viewing for anyone not interested in mocking a filmmaker and his actors decisions for an hour and a half.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"The Merchant of Venice" was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in "Shakespeare in Love") is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give "The Merchant of Venice" an 8/10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres.

Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.

The animation is  as expected  superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.

Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score.

The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.

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

positive
VHS - I have watched this over and over and LOVED every minute of it so much so I have now ordered the DVD I only wished the film could have lasted longer. I never worry about what other people think I prefer to make my own mind up and entirely disagree with the negative comments and will not let others spoil my enjoyment of the film whatsoever. Make up your own mind and don't let others put you off! I have all Jane Austen's BBC series but this is my FAVOURITE. I see there is to be a NEW Northanger Abbey released in 2007 which I will buy when it comes out but it will not stop me watching Northanger Abbey released in the 80's.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.

Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?

Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.

A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".

Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.

No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?

No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. 

"Hyde" from this one.

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

negative
OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This musical has a deep meaning which is appreciated by only a few. The wise can see the wisdom contained in what most call folly.

This music may well regain popularity as world consciousness rises. It is about a land "far away from it all" where "living things have room to grow." Its people are "living and growing together" mentally and spiritually faster than in biological age.

The lyrics help us recognize the relativity of this "world that is spinning around" and to "look inside yourself; that is where the Truth always lies." The absolute level of consciousness is more real than the ever changing world of the senses.

I have been searching for the video for years . When I find it, or it comes out in DVD, it will help "share the joy" of being in "Shangri-la" again. Burt Bacharach's music and Hal David's lyrics made a masterpiece in turbulent times that is just now ready to be fully appreciated.

May this CD inspire you to find your own "Lost Horizon" or recognize it when "peace of mind" has found you. - LostHorizon.org
I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.

There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.

Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.

This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.

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

positive
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.

Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.

Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of "The original party animals". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.

As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.

First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless "Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog" counts.

The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the "gore" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.

I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.

For god's sake, don't watch this movie.
Determine the sentiment:

I had such high hopes for Teletoon Retro to air this but instead of having shows such as this, ones that don't get the treatment that they deserve, they air things that I may have seen dozens of times before.

The Centurions was the highlight of my pre-teen years. I know that may seem a little bit clichéd but it's true. After Duke from G.I. Joe, Jake Rockewell is another one of those cartoon characters that I really had a crush on.

It's too bad that Teletoon Retro doesn't see it the same way people of my generation do. Otherwise Teletoon Retro would be a lot better than it is.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters. 

However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."

Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The crew of an American submarine discover it's HELL BELOW while fighting in the Adriatic in 1918.

Although nearly forgotten, this excellent war film still delivers solid entertainment, thanks to a literate script, superior performances and highly believable action scenes.

Robert Montgomery & Walter Huston play submarine officers under the stress of war who quickly are at odds with each other, with dramatic and tragic results. Since Montgomery is in love with Huston's daughter, Madge Evans in a well-played role, the situation becomes even more complicated, both on shore and beneath the waves. The viewer is torn between the two strong characters, one of whom is governed by his heart and the other by the rules.

Robert Young makes an effective appearance as Montgomery's buddy. Sterling Holloway creates a brief, vivid, portrait of a doomed seaman.

Eugene Pallette as the torpedo master & Jimmy Durante as the sub's cook make for a very funny comedy team and provide the story with plenty of laughs. Durante's nose comes in for lots of ribbing and his obsession with amateur dentistry leads to some chaotic encounters with British tars.

Movie mavens will recognize Babe London as an obese Italian miss; Maude Eburne as the wife of a British admiral & Paul Porcasi as an Italian admiral - all uncredited.

MGM has given the film absolutely first-class production values, with the undersea sequences especially well produced. Both the claustrophobic compactness of the ship and the inevitable tension associated with submarine warfare are accurately portrayed. Other moments of unexpected drama (Montgomery & Miss Evans caught on top of a stalled Ferris wheel during an air raid) and hilarity (Durante boxing a kangaroo) are expertly threaded into the fabric of the movie to provide a totally satisfying viewing experience.

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

positive
There are a number of reviews that comment on the cast of this film. Suffice it to say that Alex Cord plays a strong lead opposite Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy. What concerns me is that many of you may not be aware of the (at least) two existing versions of this film. In the U.S. version Clay McCord gains amnesty from Governor Lem Carter and then rides out of town redeemed. I agree that ending is less than satisfying. However, in the original Italian cut Clay McCord rides out of town (weaponless as he has turned in his pistols to the Governor) and is bushwhacked by the bounty hunters that have been slowly depopulating the bandit town of Escondido. The Bounty Killers are excited at the prospect of splitting the $10,000 reward but are disappointed to find McCord's amnesty agreement in the corpses pocket. As they ride away one is heard to comment,"If this amnesty keeps up I'm gonna start hunting buffalo !" . This alone takes A Minute To Pray...A Second To Die and places it on an even playing field with movies like Keoma and The Big Gundown. As the end credits say in the Italian cut "FINE".
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it. 

The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.

A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.

In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age.
Jamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues/soul/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.

This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it. 

Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:

GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going "country" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.

BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.

The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the "theatrical version."

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

positive
I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.

Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.

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

negative
You want to know what the writers of this movie consider funny? A robot child sees his robot parents killed (beheaded, as I recall), and then moves between their bodies calling their names. Yeah--what a comic moment. This is the worst movie I ever paid to see.

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

negative
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film is really, really full of sex. Hot sex. I watched it (of course) on Cinemax; and I liked it of course; those virtual fantasies are played out so much in great style, and I kind of enjoyed the story line. But one must know that when a soft porn film director sets out to make another soft porn film; all he/she wants to do is film good sex scenes. And I got nice sex scenes, full of skin. Yet another reason some people call soft porn Cinemax films "Skinemax."

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.

Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer? 

Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a textbook example of how Hollywood didn't (doesn't) trust moviegoers, and panders to its big name stars. The character of Christian is completely re-written, the anti-semitism Noah faces from his own army unit is virtually eliminated, Michael's story is changed significantly, and the end result is to decimate the power and terrible beauty of the book. I almost wish I hadn't even seen it, because of the ability of movies (sounds and images) to resonate so powerfully in your brain; I would have much rather just been left with the impression of the book. The book could have been written today, it is that honest and brave. The movie, neither. My advice: SKIP the movie; READ the book.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: William H. Macy is brilliant as Everyman caught in a desperate situation. Starts off with a bang and never lets up. Twists and surprises are fresh, unpredictable. Use of film noir clips and frequent quotes and references to 30's and 40's flicks makes this a delightful "must" for movie buffs.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Every time I watch this show I just want to turn it off and curse the makers for wasting my time week after week. The dialogs, or monologues rather, as everybody just rants on endlessly about nothing, are just becoming so tedious. For example, the episode I watched yesterday began with a seemingly unending rambling about how a particular dish (I forgot what it was, pasta with meatballs perhaps) always manages to turn the Gilmore family dinner into all-out war. And these were just the few seconds or so.

So it seems every time, lots of lines, with absolutely zero content. The scripts they use must be enormous.

But then every once in a while something happens. The babbling stops and suddenly there are these wonderful silent, emotional moments. For example, this week it was Lorelai's breakdown at the estate agent's. I just thought it was the best piece of TV I have seen for a long while.

Almost makes everything worthwhile.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.

Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.

Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.

If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.

My Score: 8/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Blade is a fantastic action/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.

This film has everything that you would ask for in an action/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.

Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.

This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.

My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive