cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

This was a very funny, fast paced movie. I watched it more than once and am keeping my rental around to show others. I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask anyone in the know, how do HK producers choose their subtitle translators? I'm most curious. Please direct me. 

Again, to return to review, it is a really rollicking film with plenty of content, subtleties reminiscent of the classics, though full of slapstick. Reminiscent, say, of the Mexican comedies of Cantinflas.

The film does not disappoint fans of the director who have noticed that he chooses distinctly Chinese themes, trying to get to characteristics rarely explored. The director's entire collection is way of getting a look inside the culture in a disarming way.

And I don't see how his funny girl in Chinese Feast could be topped.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.

(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's "don't look at me" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw "Reservoir Dogs". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a "f***" or a "b****". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1/2)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!

Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.

On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).

It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is the first time I'm entering a comment for a movie I haven't viewed till the credits. Reason for this is simple...people need to be warned: this is one of the worst comedies of the new millennium. I usually stay away from a good deal of comedies that are in bad taste but I reckoned this to be watchable. A regrettable decision which was based on other Ashton Kutcher comedies that were (semi-) enjoyable such as A Lot Like Love and Guess Who.

Where those two movies had their charms and laughs, this had none (and I mean none!!). The acting is horrible, especially the 'boss'. Tara Reid was no surprise, how dare she call herself an actress?! The premise is thin and the plot doesn't thicken at all. Not a problem if you manage to keep it funny and/or sweet...but as you probably already guessed, this was not the cast at all! The script felt like it wasn't quite finished and I wouldn't even be baffled if the director did some rewrites while shooting. My dog could've written a more coherent script, seriously. And he's not exactly Lassie either :-).

Stay away from this tripe even if you like silly goof-ball comedies at times (like I do). This low quality movie will not be enjoyed by many...

I (almost) never give a one so therefore...a 2.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. "Les amants réguliers", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an "amour fou" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.

The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.

There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.

The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.

"Les amants réguliers" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Watching this movie, you just have to ask: What were they thinking? There are so many noticeably bad parts of this movie, you might get the feel that its intentionally poor, as some sort of joke.

I think the worst part about the film is the directing. There are so many bad uses of camera angles and other cinematic elements in this movie that are laughably bad. The funniest example of this would be in the beginning where the party guests are receiving their invitations by email - The same camera angle is used for each shot (which last an awkward 2 seconds a piece) and the same computer screen with the same desktop/window/program etc appear. It even looks like the thing is shot on the same set each time. The whole sequence was also completely silent, with no music, or sound effects. Overall, it was a poor way to convey the idea that an email was being sent all over town.

If you listen closely, you may notice that the music sounds very similar to other movie sound tracks. This is no surprise- most songs, including the one that opens the movie, are in fact slight alterations of scores from other movies (See if you can guess which ones). Also, I noticed that the music is not played by a real orchestra. It sounds like its been written and played through a low end midi keyboard. If you are familiar with the LucasArts SCUM adventure games, the timbre of each instrument sounds like something from the IMUSE engine.

Everything else about the movie just plain sucks. The acting is terrible. The script is derivative (Ferris Beuller?). There is no joke in the movie remotely funny, unless you see the whole film as one big joke, being played on a paying audience. Don't rent this. Don't even watch it when it's rerun on comedy central. Just forget this - it's terrible.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I thought Choke had potential, but I thought it could have been a much better film. It had some interesting twists and turns, but some of them seemed kind of pointless. When showing background on the two main characters, some of that really seemed to go awry. Most of it was sort of useless and didn't help the movie at all. This was also not Dennis Hopper's finest hour. However, the main saving grace of this movie for me was Michael Madsen. His performance was excellent. In this movie, he almost makes Mr. Blonde look like a nice guy. All in all, it was watchable. Still, I was left thinking some things could have been done differently. These things would have made the movie much better, in my opinion.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I have never before seen a movie quite like this, nor as funny. I laughed my goddamned ass off and have watched it repetitively. Infact I am watching it now. Chad from CKY is hot too. Anyway if you never liked it, blow it out your ass, you have no taste. The movie involves Ry (Ryan Dunn) having just broke up with his girlfriend turning to Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon DiCamillo) for help in finding out exactly what she done with "Hellboy" (Rake Yohn), and with the help of Raab (Chris Raab/Raab Himself) they do just that.

The fender bender scene and the scene with Cactus at Record Bin were hilarious.
What's an example of a movie review?

I expected FAME to be an uplifting film but it ended up the opposite. The overall plot which follows the lives of several determined students attending a performing arts school has strong potential. However, FAME builds its characters up beautifully and then leaves us with so many questions when its over. I was very surprised when the graduation scene pops up -- we thought the DVD had skipped or something. All of the characters have internal and external conflicts of some sort and virtually none of them are resolved when the movie ends! You might think there are too many characters, but its probably too many scenes. Its evident the film was cut up and shortened because its sometimes lacks transition. I think Laura Dean as Lisa Monroe is my favorite character. I really connected with her character's ambition and following her heart. Boyd Gaines as Michael, the stereotypical poor student who can't read but is a divine dancer, is also very good. I didn't especially like Irene Cara's character of Coco, but this is not Cara's fault since her script is weak and her character is not fleshed out. Her voice is beautiful and hearing her songs warrants watching the whole film. In summary, the film could use many improvements, but the quality actors and great music earn its place in film history.
Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.

Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...

I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...

http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This wonderful film has never failed to move me. The colour, convincing cast, and stunning scenery all make big contributions. This production, unlike the later remake by Carlton, is more impressionistic, and presented more from the children's own perspective. It focusses on certain episodes from E. Nesbit's charming story rather than trying to make a somewhat more documentary "warts-and-all" style that Carlton adopts. Above all, the superb musical score of the late Johnny Douglas underpins the story throughout, adding extra emotional depth. The net result is a truly formidable combination of sensory experiences that cumulatively present the poignant story of "The Railway Children".

One uncomfortable factor for the viewer to ponder throughout this film is how things have changed since those times - and in many ways, for the worse! Yes, maybe many of us no longer have to use outside toilets and travel in horse-drawn carts, but what about the quality of life in general? Consider the foul-mouthed celebrities who now "grace" our TV screens. Their language is now apparently considered perfectly acceptable. Consider, too, the fragile "here today, gone tomorrow" aspects of so many of today's "partnerships" plus all the single mothers - whatever happened to that institution called "marriage", when people accepted each others' flaws but still remained together, loving their children? These details add extra piquancy when watching this marvellous film.

I hope that, as generations pass, children will still be able to enjoy this film. Not to mention certain adults!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As the mom of a 3 year old and a 2 year old, I adore AristoCats. It is a movie that contains no double-entendres, no almost-swear words like heck or darn, no parents who are functional idiots, and no crotch-smashing or flatulence jokes that are so prevalent in even the "best" kids movies these days. The story line is sweet and interesting. The music is great. The love story is quite romantic. The kittens are adorable, and the various other characters are unique and attention-capturing. The action is simple and not overwhelming or confusing. The characters are quite well-cast as well. I love listening to Eva Gabor's velvety voice, and there are so many others that are familiar from childhood and also fit the characters so well. It's really a movie about love, tolerance, good manners, and faithfulness. Who doesn't want their kids exposed to these values? It is a movie that I don't mind watching over and over, unlike Happy Feet where I couldn't watch the whole thing even once because it was so irritating. I wish production companies would move toward making movies more like this one.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: First things first - though I believe Joel Schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad, the lion's share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to John Grisham whose novel this is based on.

Set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s? the 70s? now?), the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that "at least we're not that bad" Cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father, Samuel L Jackson, fearful they will get off on some technicality, guns them down in cold blood before the trial. 

The setting is a 'deep south' that probably never existed - the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton, the dyed-in-the-wool racists (Kiefer Sutherland is a cartoon version of a Klansman) are laughable in their villainy. The set-piece is the trial: for the defence, are the "good guys" - a milquetoast lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey as though in a coma, his assistant played by Sandra Bullock's breasts (she doesn't seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and Donald Sutherland as the requisite drunk-lawyer-who-sobers-up-to-fight-the-good-fight. For the prosecution, Kevin Spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn, while in the town at large, crosses are burned, witness are intimidated and the local citizens don't seem to care 

Some of the reviews here claim the film immoral, since surely Samuel Jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart-tugging piece of oratory by Matthew McConaughey. To be honest, objectionable though the underlying message "Vigilante justice is good" might be, everything about the movie stinks: the characterizations are pitiful, the acting leaden, the direction plodding, the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. Peter Menzies lush, 50s Technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative. 

And it goes on for nearly two and a half hours!! 

What's left to say? This is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone's life, it is tedious, vacuous and hammy, and, almost as an afterthought, it is morally repugnant.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Anthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous "wanna be with a guy who's with a girl" killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.

My Grade: D 

Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for "Chinese Erotic Ghost Story" and "Twenty Something"
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Early in the movie, Cagney's Johnny Cave character tells his gumshoes in the Office of Weights and Measures that in the previous year, unscrupulous shop owners had cheated the American consumer out of more money than the aggregate National War Debt! Then he goes out and tickets a particularly greasy green grocer for short-selling him a bag of sugar that is four ounces off (oh, the horrors!!) and one skinny chicken that his butcher's scale has rather generously proclaimed to be six lbs., after which the fur--or in this case feathers--flies. Er, fly. When a racketeer in politician's clothing attempts to derail an investigation into the paltry poultry purveyor's practices, our hero becomes a lone wolf waging the war of the weights on behalf of housewives across America. After all, four cents here and a quarter there add up and before we know it we have anarchy! Word of his intransigence soon reaches both the Mayor and the Governor's offices, and Cagney becomes a marked man. If it sounds silly, it's not--the dishonest retailing practices are only a plot tool (or as Hitchcock would say, the McGuffin) and while unfamiliar, it works every bit as well here as any Treasury Agent or G-man anthology in which the fight is taken to shady crooks who are operating outside the interests of the country's common good. The production standards are decidedly Grade-B, but it is Cagney who makes this movie the delight that it is: this was his first film away from Warner Brothers after seeking release in court from his unreasonable contract, and he seems to be at ease and enjoying himself tremendously--the performance turned in here is intelligent and crackles with his unique energy and surefire charisma. Mae Clarke's presence lends a definite Warner's feel to the overall production. The supporting players turn in solid performances and the story moves along smartly after a rocky introduction that seems to begin three or four reels into the story--but sit back and enjoy it for the Cagney showcase and engaging Depression-era time capsule that it is.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is the greatest movie ever. If you have written it off with out ever seeing it. You must give it a second try.
What's an example of a movie review?

Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.

This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.

The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.

Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?

I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.

This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.
Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).

Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....

Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.

But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: People have often been uncomfortable with "The Merchant of Venice", due to its anti-Semitic subject matter. Fortunately, this movie avoids that, opting instead to show how anti-Semitism reigned supreme in 16th century Europe. The story, of course, is that Antonio (Jeremy Irons) needs money so that he can help Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) ask for Portia's (Lynn Collins) hand in marriage. He gets the money from Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino), who demands a pound of Antonio's flesh if the latter doesn't pay back the loan. When Antonio can't pay back the loan, Shylock is determined to get what is owed him.

We would expect this cast to do a good job, and they don't disappoint. It is yet another testament to what a great actor Al Pacino is.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Excellent Piece of work!

I am not a surfer nor a skate board fan, but work this good about sorting sock drawers would have been riveting. A must see!

There is a lot to enjoy here. Excellent Visuals. Great sound track mix. Huge body of documentary work both pictures and film.

The life work and love of the subject is captivating.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I felt as though the two hours I spent watching this film may have been better served by perhaps going to the local used bookstore and looking for old fashion magazines and Halston ads. Or perhaps by watching paint dry. Those two employments would have at least engaged my mind a bit more than "India Song." The most frustrating part of sitting through this was that I could see what moods/atmospheres were trying to be created and the notion of these could have been interesting if they had been fleshed out more. Instead, what happened was a presentation of an incoherent, silly chain of nonevents - with the same scenes rehashed over and over to beat some sort of point into our senses.

I was loathe to devote more time to this film by writing any sort of review, except to perhaps warn other folks against this waste of time.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.

However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a "fuller" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing. 

Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!

Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.

Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.

Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.
This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.

I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.

With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say "this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.

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

negative
The whole movie made me think of the first circle of Dante's Inferno, Where the souls who 'fool' themselves in believing that they are happy go to. They never realize they are actually in an inferno, but nothing is enjoyable, they just move on without any emotion. In that sense Dante thought that they the were in the worse part, as they would never actively try to change their situation. Nobody can die in that place, but trying to certainly does hurt. I am not sure if the writer based his story on this medieval manuscript or not, but the resemblance is absolutely striking.

I didn't enjoy the movie when I was watching it, as I was expecting a climax which never came. Nevertheless, it made me think afterwards and now I actually think it's a good film - it surely does stick.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Rajkumar Santoshi tries his hands at comedy and succeeds. One of the few good movies that involves Salman Khan. A very funny movie from start to finish. All the characters contribute to the movie and believe me, there are a lot of them. Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Raveena Tandon, Karishma Kapoor, Paresh Rawal, Viju Khote, Jagdip, Deven Verma, Shakti Kapoor, Harish Patel, Tiku Talsania and more. The direction, editing, sound are not up to par, but that still does not matter, because the actors more than make up for that part.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I'm not sure why this film is averaging so low on IMDb when it's absolutely everything you could ever want in a horror film. This is the definition of being a horror film. I consider myself to be a big horror fan and I must say that this house delivers the goods. House of wax Is the story of a group of college kids on their way to a football game whom decide to camp out for the night and have a run in with a local weirdo. Upon waking the next morning they make a gruesome discovery and decide to go into town for a broken car part. The town is creepy and I'm just gonna stop there. Because thats when the truly gruesome mayhem begins. trust me when I say if your looking for a horror film go see this you will love it. It's wonderfully diabolical and inventive with it's killing scenes, the story is interesting and the characters are decently drawn with the actors giving them gobs of personality. Paris Hilton included whom does quite well with her part. the film lies a little on the shallow side but it's so much fun and who cares. This movie should eat up the box office and all horror fans should have part in it. Go see House of Wax the film that features skin being peeled, super glued lips, dead animal carcasses, hot wax sprayed on a still living person, a finger being cut off, a decapitation, a pole through the head and much more. I was lucky enough to witness this film at the Tribeca premiere and all the actors were on hand to promote the film. And boy do they have something to be proud of House of wax is the scariest roller coater ride of the year! 9/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.

To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.

Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.

If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. *****
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I'm from Texas so I thought I knew big hair, but the female villain in this movie had humongous hair. Whenever she was on the screen I couldn't concentrate on anything but her hair. Take about stage presence! There seemed to be a lot of people with hearing problems in this movie also. There was a traffic warden writing out a parking ticket who somehow didn't notice the owner plunging toward the car screaming at the top of his lungs until he hit the car. Then there was a guy in a phone booth who couldn't hear a huge bulldozer coming at him until it was 5 feet away. All the hit men in this movie seemed a bit deaf, no one had to sneak up on them. The one handed 'hero' of this movie was so whiny and ineffective that it was funny. The bar-fight was pretty funny. There is a priceless scene where the hero and his girlfriend just had sex and judging from their expressions, it wasn't good for either one of them. It made me laugh out loud. This movie is on the 50 Movie Pack Martial Arts set if you want to see a lot of bad movies (with a few decent ones).
Many of the earlier comments are right on the money, but some, well, not so much.

This Is hardly a 'B' movie...it's well produced, the live flying sequences are really superb, and the model sequences are first rate. It's no "cheapie".

Ricard Barthelmess is quite good in this, and it makes a a nice companion piece for "Only Angels Have Wings".

If you want to spot John Wayne, spot J. Carrol Naish first, they end up together.

Tom Browne is juvenile enough (and somewhat dull), but when they saddle him with the most pathetic pencil-mustache in Hollywood history, it makes his character even less believable. Sally Eilers is much more so.

As for later influences, this is Wellman in the early Airliner-in-Distress zone...the opening sequence of this film, with the Airline Operations guy arriving at the "Grand Central Airport" would have fit very nicely into "The High and the Mighty"...just imagine Regis Toomey...and a 1955 Buick.

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

positive
Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you have few expectations, then this will entertain for 90 minutes. My problem is that they've dumbed down this tale for the modern audience. Highwaymen are already sexy, exciting characters. They don;t need the techno soundtrack and snappy dialogue.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Although perhaps not as entertaining as some of Herzog's work, Little Dieter is another fine film by one of the world's greatest film artists. Departing from Herzog's usual themes, Little Dieter is a fascinating and uplifting character study about a brave man and his efforts to go on living after a life-alteringly traumatic experience. 

Dieter Dengler wanted to fly from a very young age, and the Viet Nam war gave him that opportunity, but instead of spending the war soaring in a cockpit, he spent most of it grounded as a POW. Dieter tells most of his story eloquently and passionately, with occasional help from Herzog. Herzog does very little voice over this time, but contributes a lot of subtly powerful soundscaping and visuals - which should be no surprise to those familiar with him.

Dengler is a fascinating and extremely likable person. As human and as alive as they come, I found the story of his life and his incorrigibly upbeat personality to be inspiring. Thanks to Herzog for (re)introducing him to us.

The scale of the film is not as sprawling, and the drama is not as fierce as many of the early films that made Herzog a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this to his fans and to those who enjoy documentaries. It's a very interesting and well executed film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.

Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.

By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative