cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!

Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?

For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I agree with the other 9 and 10 star reviews. I saw this at the South By Southwest Film Festival in Austin. Of the 20 films I saw,7 were really good and this was the best one for me. I'm a sucker for movies that have plot devices where characters go through transformations that totally change their lives. The excellent acting was mostly done by people involved in TV, or it was their first movie. It was written and directed by Jay Floyd. This was his debut as a director. Jay's day job is apparently as a clearance administrator for lots of famous films. Forgiving the Franklins was a total delight and extremely funny in spots. This is one movie where I would buy the DVD and re-watch it, truly a high complement from me. Well done, Jay, yes...give up your day job!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Yes 1939/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole!

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.
Good things out of the way first:

Underdog's voice acting was FINE. But Jason Lee being awesome himself, that really is no surprise.

Peter Dinklage (Barsinister) also did fine, for what trash was given to him. He acted the part shockingly well. And so did Patrick Warburton, the moronic assistant. Now, it was idiotic character but he acted so extremely well, I actually liked the character better than the protagonists. The lines given to him were childish but witty.

However. Alex Neuberger did awful and hope he never acts again. His "Scream" was so disgustingly fake. Silence. Silence. "aaahhhhhhh". In the scene where he hears the dog talk, an "oh no, impossible!" would have sufficed in place of the pathetic fake scream.

And then there was the girl and her female dog that chased Patrick's character Cad on the roof. At first this makes sense, she's a "Reporter." A school reporter but still an inquiring mind regardless. But why, WHY the HELL did she carry her dog around? That was worthless and the damn dog didn't even say anything other than a heartless "oh, underdog!" Her presence was extremely unnecessary.

Overall, the script was pathetic. The only reason I give this movie a 3 is Barsinister, his assistance, and underdog's voice.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one excellent film.

I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that people rating might not normally see.

I equate it to playing modern rock for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for it.

If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre talent, give this one a try next time you see it on...


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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good "Action" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.

I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.

The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.

This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.

However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.

I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does.
Beyond the Clouds is in many ways the weirdest film I have ever seen. Not for its Cult appeal, gore, or even for its ideas, but because of the elements that combine to make this a masterpiece of cinema. Beyond the Clouds was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, one of Italy's most famous directors. However, if you gave this film only a quick watch-over, passively I mean, it would seem one of those melodramatic and often pointless romances. This movie deserves great attention, to the point of embracing all its cheese. By cheese I don't mean a slice, but a whole brick of cheddar! The music seems like it's from some Italian porno, the story and dialogue like they are from a corny Japanese soap, and the metaphors are so obvious you want to smack yourself on the head.

But once you get passed all this, you are engaged in an existential work of art. The cheese feeds into the subtle filming and draws our attention, perfectly, to what needs to be known. The basic plot is of four chapters, unrelated, and all about love. What we learn is that no matter what happens or what is said, people cannot communicate to each other. Instead they can only communicate through each other. I suppose that's why the dialogue and plot is so cheesy, because the conversations are overly irrational with lack of causality and people's reaction overly melodramatic.

I left that film thinking to myself; maybe all life is one big melodrama. We judge our feelings towards others as real and purposeful. I hate, because I have reason. But what does the hated think? Maybe they think that my hate is stupid and arbitrary. In other words, melodramatic.

So melodrama is actually an existential function. A corny romance is simply human interaction put under a magnifying glass, allowing us to see the futility of who we are and what we do.

This is a great film, I recommend it to all!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Just after having moved into his new cottage in the English country, Hercule Poirot gets an invitation to dinner from Sir Henry and Lady Angkatell, the owners of a large mansion nearby. But the next day, one of the guests is found shot near the pool, and his clumsy wife is holding a revolver a few steps away....

This Agatha Christie mystery is somewhat thin, though the killer's plan is still very clever. It's the exquisite filming and cinematography that elevate the story to a higher level. This episode mostly keeps the serious tone of "Five Little Pigs" and "Sad Cypress", but contains more dark humor than them. The cast includes possibly the two most famous actors to have worked in the series by this point, Edward Fox (as the butler) and Sarah Miles (as Lady Angkatell), though the standout performance is given by the dazzlingly beautiful Megan Dodds as the ahead-of-her-time Henrietta: her one-on-one confrontations with Suchet sparkle and are the highlights of the film. Oh, and since an English police inspector does get involved in the case, I think they could have brought Philip Jackson back for this one. (***)
This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates "Oi!" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.

But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are "how kids really are," and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and "Date Movie" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover. 

I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.

I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.

However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground.
First Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It

The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore

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

negative
Though this film destroyed Director and Screenwriter Michael Cimino's career and bankrupted United Artists, it still stands as one of the top movies of all time. There are plenty of reasons to prematurely dismiss this movie for sure. Among them: its length, its technical problems, its colossal mistreatment of animals on set -- the list goes on and on. And yet, for all of this, it remains a film that captures something. It is a classic example of naturalistic storytelling on par with Strindberg -- its moments lasting as long as they might in reality, having not been dumbed down for good cinematic timing. It feels real in its moments of anger, love, and war (and hopelessness). This film should be seen by any person who appreciates film and storytelling.

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

positive
This film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I liked this comedy so much. Will Smith does not do anything slow. It is always right on target with the greatest scripts and comedy that keeps you laughing, and involved in the plot. You are watching a skilled comedian, who plays all his parts well. One fully believes he is who he is playing. I loved him and Tommy Lee Jones in the Men in Black. This comedy rates right up with that movie. The humor is fast moving, and Will Smith is as sure of himself as he was in Men in Black. Quick witted, and well skilled in the art of making others score each time, but doing it in a tasteful manner, and with finesse.

Will Smith seems to have honed his comedy routine well. He was so darn funny. I loved the part where he had an allergic reaction to something he ate, and his face swelled up, and he looked more like Cassius Clay after a fight then he did himself. Then seeing him sipping on the benadryl bottle trying to bring his head back down to the right size. I laughed so hard. He knows how to make us all laugh.
Determine the sentiment:

This was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard. Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie certainly is a weird one to say the least. The basic plot is 3 old business associates invite 2 strangers into their home for returning a lost wallet with 10 bucks in it. The two whom show up fall in love. The 3 older business men die and come back as ghosts to try to help the two younger guests out. Okay so that may make sense but then we have 3 old guys whom apparently have some bread living together..slightly weird here...Harry Carey plays his part way off base you can't tell if he is a nice guy or really a prick. I mean really, make up my mind I can handle it. Then there is Richard Carlson playing James Houston from Texas....hmmmmm, He sounds way more like a southern gentleman from Kentucky than a person from Texas. This one isn't even close.. Then we take the 3 ghosts whom would stand a better chance of helping the New Orleans Saints win a play off game than actually helping out...In fact they are really no help at all and why they are even in the film is beyond any scope of knowledge.. Silly film in which a cast of characters act totally out of character..You can avoid this one..
I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of "Cabaret" can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of "Cabaret" follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in "Cabaret"), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if "Cabaret" had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same.

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

positive
I just purchased An Zhan (Running out of time) on DVD and it was an excellent film I must say. Not really action-packed, in terms of gun play, but definitely exciting and witty. I do not think I have seen Andy Lau in better form. And the editing on this film was very well executed. Go watch this now if you are a fan of Lau or HK thiller/action film!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.
Determine the sentiment:

A precursor to "Citizen Kane" in its analysis of the life of a just deceased tycoon, here reviewed by his faithful secretary in a series of interlocking flashbacks. In Spencer Tracy's 15th film he already looks middle-aged even in the scenes where he is meant to be young!

A little silent-screen type emoting is understandable given the vintage but this is a most enjoyable, well-written drama.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Once you sit down to see this film " A Cannon for Cordoba " you get the feeling it's going to be a great. The reason? The film begins with a rousing score by noted composer Elmer Bernstein who gave us such memorable themes as 'The Great Escape and the Magnificent Seven.' Indeed, when you read the opening credits headlining the cast is none other than George Peppard as Capt. Rod Douglas, you know it's going to have action and lot's of it. Furthermore when you see actor John Russel playing General John J. Pershing, you know you're in for a heroic saga. The story is taken from the annals of the Mexican revolution and involves the U.S. in a border town dispute with the Mexican bandits who cross the Rio Grande in the early 1900s. Among the most brazen of the rebel leaders is General Cordova (Raf Vallone). With his army of Mexican revolutionaries, he attacks Pershing, kills his men and steals some valuable artillery pieces. Since the United States Army cannot enter Mexico legally, Capt. Douglas is sent on what is slated a suicide mission, without orders and without aid from Pershing. His mission is to retrieve the Cannons, destroy a rebel stronghold and bring Cordova back alive. Selecting the roughest, toughest, most experienced, certainly the most insolent men available, Douglas enters Mexico and attacks the nearly impregnable fortress. Dramatic action follows, as does lots of explosive excitement. If one is asks for criticism, I would say the choice of heavies. Vallone and John Larch are not very menacing. Not so with the men who side with Peppard. Pete Duel and Don Gordon (Who is superb.) Nevertheless, this movie is recommended as good viewing. ****
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!

Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).

All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- "Out Cold"ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)

MOVIE - 1/10 - because you can't give any lower scores
I rented the movie and liked it so much that I bought it. Elijah Wood (Mikey) and Joseph Mazello (Bobby) are outstanding as the two boys. Their new stepfather physically abuses Bobby. The abuse is implied, for the most part, not seen, and roused a lot of passion in me to help abused children. There is a magical quality to the movie as the boys' imagination helps them find a way to deal with the abuse. You have to try to understand the story from a child's point of view. I'm still thinking about the ending. I've watched the movie 3 or 4 times and each time I think of possible new meanings. I'm not sure exactly what Richard Donner intended me to think, but this is an excellent film! Joseph Mazello and Elijah Wood will make you go hug your kids.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.

However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.
Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is another enjoyable and entertaining Hitchcock film. James Stewart and Doris Day are incredible in this movie. Bernard Herrmann appears as himself near the climax.

The scenery and locations are great, except the one scene early on where the background was obviously fake, which doesn't make sense to me since scenes before and after were in the same setting and they were real location shots. I've heard that Hitchcock did this on purpose sometimes.

The reviews for this movie seem to be mixed. I think this is a better than average Hitchcock movie. Very entertaining and it has a great light comical scene at the end.

I rated this movie 8 out of 10.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ?
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.

Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.

I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel.
Up And Coming was a very positive sitcom, which brought a tool/and or channel that opened the young minds of the Black Culture. The focus and outlook was a message of positivity for our people, and hope for change. I advise this selection for every American household to experience the struggle, and the reward. The show was never given the chance to blossom into the idea of middle-class Blacks becoming business owners of their own. The issue's were so compatible with real life situation's that impacted the lives of so many. I sincerely hope that the entire volume can be restored, and put on DVD for Americans to enjoy with their families.

Thanks.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.

Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".

Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.

Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"

O.K. Bye.

P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?

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

negative
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.

Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.

You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.

Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.

The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.

Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!

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

negative