cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Aksar is an awful movie. The script, the story, the acting are all simply laughable. Dino Morea plays a man who pays Emraan Hashmi to seduce his wife. Yes, this is as ridiculous as it sounds. Both Morea and Hashmi offer incredibly and unsurprisingly bad acting. Udita Goswami plays the aggressive, capricious and angry wife. She is good-looking but has zero acting talent. The film has one hit song called "Jhalak Diklaja" which is composed and sung by Himesh Reshammiya. I never could understand the hype around this song as I never found it particularly good though it is catchy. The film is supposed to be a thriller but instead it just looks like a comic strip thanks to the terrible direction and writing. Avoid this cheapo at any cost.

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

negative
Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?

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

negative
Leonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.

Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.

The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.

How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

To quote Jason Connery and Mark Ryan on one of the many DVD commentaries, that "wobbly music" over the HTV logo was enough to get me jumping from whatever I was doing to glue my face against the screen for an hour. The individual stories contained within the series were excellent and the character development was wonderful. Robin of Loxley goes through a very convincing journey over the two series he appears in, even though his departure from the programme was unplanned. Marian also develops her relationship with both of Herne's sons very well.

After languishing for many years in TV wasteland, I re-encountered the series on Sky 1 in the UK in the mid nineties and was even more impressed that the series seemed even better than I remembered. This is no children's television programme, it deals with witchcraft, treason, rebellion and injustice. And, it manages to do it without showing too much blood. As far as I can recall, you only see a bit of the red stuff in the Pilot film (Episodes 1 and 2 on the DVD set). The DVDs are great, containing a wealth of extras including cast commentaries on Series 3 only (the Jason Connery Robin) and crew commentaries for Series 1 and 2. The picture quality is very good and the remixed and remastered surround sound is amazing.

The idea of freedom is important, freedom prevails. Nothing's forgotten. Nothing's ever forgotten.
Determine the sentiment:

My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I won't spoil it for you. Although you probably could care less if it was spoiled (you'll know what I mean after you watch it) Poor story. B-rated movie quality. Typical horror -stupid situations- rare timing. I should of known, when they try to push a lot of hype in their advertising or even add "quotes". Just tells me that the movie bombed big time. And they are trying to pull in everyone just so they can break even with to cost of making this bomb. I wish I could take back the time I spent watching this. I was stupid and thought that there just had to be something great around the corner. But I kept getting let down. I don't usually waste my time adding comments to any movie. In fact, this is my second post. I just felt maybe I could spare a few of you from wasting money on something that had a bunch of hype on it.
I am usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.

Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to "poverty row" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.

20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive "B" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were "B" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.

Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed "phoned in"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.

Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.

To give you guys a few pointers of the "film": 

1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).

2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this "film" are officially over by the way.

3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. "I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas."? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this? 

4. Watch this "film" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.

5. This "film" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.

6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called "Dracula" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.

7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.) 

8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.

9. I was a devout Catholic before this "film". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.

10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.

Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) .
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said "To Be Continued" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ernst Lubitsch gave us wonderful films like Design for Living, Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, To be or not to be, and other wonderful films. But People usually put Bluebeard's eighth wife as one of Lubitsch's weakest films.

But I consider this film as an important film. This film began the collaboration of Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch wrote the screenplay for Ernst Lubitsch's Ninotchka. Of Course, Lubitsch worked with writers in the scripting process. After that, Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder worked together. They together wrote the screenplay for famous films like The Lost Weekend and Sunset Blvd.

There are lots of funny moments in the film. I thought "The Taming of the Shrew" was very funny. There is a famous expression called "Films are slices of Life." And Here is a great example from Bluebeard's eighth wife (1938).

At the first session of the scripting process, Lubitsch posed this question: how do the boy and girl get together? Billy Wilder promptly suggested that the opening scene should be the men's shop of a department store. "The boy is trying to buy a pajama," he extemporized glibly. "But he sleeps only in the tops. He is thrifty so he insists on buying only the tops. The clerk says he must buy the pants too. It looks like a catastrophe. Then the girl comes into the shop and buys the pants because she sleeps only in the pants." Ernst Lubitsch and Charles Brackett were enchanted. It wasn't till months later they discovered that Billy Wilder himself is a tops-only sleeper and that he had been nursing the idea for months waiting for a chance to use it.

I got this information from a book. I think this film can be considered as the return of Ernst Lubitsch. Right after this film, he made wonderful films like Ninotchka, The Shop around the Corner, and To be or not to be.

I thought Gary Cooper's performance was good. I think Lubitsch casted Gary Cooper probably because Gary Cooper played Long Fellow Deeds who inherited the fortune in Frank Capra's Mr. Deeds goes to town. But this is just my opinion.

As for me, I highly enjoyed the film. I rate this film 9 out of 10. Lubitsch films are different, because his films are slices of life.

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

positive
Every time the supposed explorers and we , the audience, is primed to set its first sights one of the wonderous new worlds, for some ungodly reason, the filmmakers decided to distract with an "emergency" or some false alarm or some bit of artificial dramatic suspense. 

So instead of calmly enjoying the surface of Io, or standing over the rings of Saturn or concentrating on the magic of flying by a comet or an asteroid, we are distracted into worrying about the wellbeing and survival of the characters. Big let down !!!!

The filmmakers seem to be unsure what they want. A documentary of the natural wonders in our solar system, or a suspense thriller in which the viewer cares more about the characters than the subject matter. Come on. 

Hello. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd watch a real Narrative sci-fi movie. 

Sure it's a docu-drama. But the characters and their survival here (the risks of such a mission - should be secondary to the subject matter ). Wait. Yes the risks of such a mission are an important part of the subject matter - since essentially this is a film about a space mission , not just about the solar system. But it was overplayed and distracted strongly from the discovery of new worlds we were supposed to be enjoying. 

Otherwise, the film was remarkable in giving a very realistic feel for the human elements of a space mission , the squabbles, the tensions, the weight of responsibility, the near-fatal mistakes, the sacrifices , etc. Also it would fit very well in the hard-sci-fi subgenre - in fact it would be one of the best , because here the science was almost closely adhered to. 

But the distractions were awful. 

Otherwise, I missed showing the effects of being in space for several years on the astronauts AFTER landing on Earth. Also not
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.

Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.

It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is "flying wine maker" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.

If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.

(8/10)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The main reason I loved this movie is because IMx (formerly Immature) were in it. They were in House Party 3 when they were 11, but they are all grown up now! I was a little shocked at some of the things they were doing in the movie (almost ready to tear my hair out), but I had to realize that they were not my little boys anymore. I think Chris Stokes did a pretty good job, considering that is was his first movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?
No idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like "The Fanglys" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a well-crafted piece from everyone's favorite master of suspense. As usual, the technical elements such as camera work and lighting are outstanding (especially for the film's time). I did not find the first part of the film very exciting, but the latter one certainly made up for it with one thrilling scene after another.

The only thing I did not like about this movie was the choice of Farley Granger for the part of Guy Haines. Somehow, I didn't find him very believable. On the other hand, Robert Walker shines as sinister 'bad guy' Bruno Anthony.

Overall, I would highly recommend this.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".

That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.

Don't waste your time.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.

What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.

This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"

There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.

Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.

That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.

Enjoy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and  strangely  all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful  or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.

This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.

Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.

The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work, as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.

This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.

Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.

K-PAX is rated PG-13 for "a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality", and that covers it. As far as "violent images" go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 "f" word (wow, only one!), 11 "s" words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The "sensuality" part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like "having your nuts in a vice." Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.

In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.

Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8/10
Write a negative movie review.

I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.

It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.

The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.

It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.

It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.

3/10 or *1/2(out of four)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.

I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script. 

Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!

Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.

I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..

Yikes.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could!
I agree that this film wasted my time and my money. The poster mislead me to thinking it was a different type of movie. I should have known given the unprofessional look of the poster. Someone should sue for false advertising.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.

Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Unlike one of the reviewers below, I don't think that a great and glittering career should lie ahead for the director of this inept and tedious piece of navel-gazing. Whereas it is good to see a British director attempting to break out of the confines of convention, AKA's only claim for innovative fame rests on the novelty of the triple screen. At first you think that this might prove to be an interesting device, but its only real contribution to the film is to test your eyesight and patience. Seeing the same character from 3 different angles in a 2-dimensional movie does not make it more revealing or complex. If you can forget the triple screen (which, granted, is very hard to do), you then have to deal with the unintentionally hilarious script. The audience is beaten into submission by chiche upon chiche about the British class system. The film has the political and emotional sophistication of an episode of Upstairs and Downstairs. To sum up: the Emperor's New Clothes. And a rather poor outfit, too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

If I heard the male lead say "This is madness!" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake "grind him under your heel" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.
Determine the sentiment:

This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.

Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.

I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was so cool! I saw it on a Friday night with a couple of my friends. While the first credits were rolling, we saw that Lionsgate Films had made this movie. They are the ones that made that stupid movie Wolf Creek, which was totally gay! When we saw this, we groaned. We thought it was going to be like Wolf Creek, but we were so wrong! The movie was not only better than Wolf Creek (which really isn't that hard) it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time! They really redeemed themselves with this movie. It was gory, smart, and scary, which are the combinations to an awesome horror movie. Kane is awesome as Jacob Goodnight, and Christina Vidal, Samantha Noble, and Luke Pegler did pretty good jobs as part of a group of delinquents cleaning an old motel. It had some gross scenes, and you actually kinda feel sad for some of the people who die. All in all, a great horror movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night with the lights off and with friends. Just don't watch it in a hotel.
It is now clear that the true golden age of American film was from the mid-60s until just before the release of Star Wars. Before then, there was too much Hays Code-constricted pap. With Star Wars, the green light was lit for most films to be directed at children and morons, a practice which continues to this day. THE SEVEN-UPS, truth be told, contains a couple hackneyed lines of dialogue -- "We can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way" is one -- but I'm damned if I can find anything else wrong with it. (In fact, that line may not even have been stale when this film was made.) THE SEVEN-UPS demonstrates all that was right with the best films of the golden age: sparse dialogue, realistic acting, real locations (winter in a dirty New York has never looked better/worse), propulsive stories, and, yes, the best car chase ever filmed. Bill Hickman is the driver Scheider is chasing (you will recognize him from Bullitt), and the structure of the chase is fairly similar to the McQueen one, but I prefer Scheider's facial intensity here, the pacing, the terrific close-ups of the schoolchildren, and the shattering conclusion. (That VW bug going about 2 mph always bothers me in the Bullitt chase.) A stringy, screechy score by Don Ellis sets the perfect mood. THE SEVEN UPS: bleak, grim, action-oriented, grown-up. This is a film that couldn't be made today; there's no "gimmick" for the kiddies or preposterous ending. Thank you, Philip D'Antoni, Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco: for as long as cop films are watched, THE SEVEN-UPS and its 1970s brethren (e.g., THE FRENCH CONNECTION), will set the standard.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? 

So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Nothing but the void, a pleasant one for those who have known the eighties, but well, quite boring for those who are not interested in it. NO screenplay in this film, but a hero wandering in an underground New York full of arstists and night clubbers. It is aimless, pointless and naive. But not entirely unpleasant.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: When i saw this movie the first thing that jumped at me was the acting of Kelly Overton a young (and op and coming star) actress that i saw for the first time totally blew me away.. she is amazing on screen and I'm really looking forward to see what the future brings her....

The movie it self was good in the sense that it let Kelly Overton do her stuff and take the wiever for a ride... not much new tho i had the feeling that i had seen it all before.. but a good experience :) I would recommend this movie... if only to see Kelly Overton.. this stage actor takes the screen by storm.. i give this movie a vote of 7... 5 for the acting performance and 2 for the rest of the movie.

And on a last note.. sorry about my bad English.. if this is gibberish for you :P plz ignore me...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.

There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.

Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.

In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The recent history of Hollywood remakes of ghost/horror films from the East has been dismal. This film will inevitably suffer the same fate, so get a copy on e-bay or similar.

It is well photographed and the sound is superb. Viewing on a good screen and with a good 5.1 or DTS enabled sound system is recommended. Obviously it is subtitled, so if that puts you off, then I wouldn't bother with this. Dubbing rarely works and simply would not do here.

It is also genuinely frightening, with excellent performances from a cast who will be unfamiliar to Western audiences. I would particularly single out the stepmother character, who was utterly brilliant. The ending will have you wanting to watch it again, if you can cope. The plot is relentless, and offers no comforting moments of release along the way.

If I do have a small criticism, there is perhaps a detectable influence in certain scenes from the Japanese version of The Ring. We have, however, accepted straight copies of other peoples' ideas for Western films for years, and so my point is a limited one which did not prevent me from giving it 10/10. I believe most fans of this genre will derive huge "pleasure" from this film which I for one hope goes down as a classic.