cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?
OUR GANG got one chance at a feature film in its 22 year history, and this was the best that could be done? It's boring, forced and pointless, and I must respectfully disagree with the other poster on this film; the 1994 LITTLE RASCALS remake was better than this. Almost anything is. The kids are subordinate to the Civil War proceedings; it doesn't feel like an OUR GANG film at all, but like a humorless second-rate Shirley Temple clone.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...

The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.

It might have had a chance if the "pop culture meets depression" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different. 

Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue. 

At a reported budget in excess of $7m, "The Tender Hook" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with "Noise" (under $2m), or "Cedar Boys" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.

The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film.
Determine the sentiment:

Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked "Ik ook van Jou" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.

The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.

And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.

So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see the film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.

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

negative
Story of the creation of Underdog and adventures battling Simon Bar Sinister in a live action format. First we have Showshine picked up off the street and brought to a science experiment lab where Simon Bar Sinister works. He fights back when Sinister tries to inject him with a chemical and accident occurs, he gets superpowers and the lab blows up wounding Sinister. On the street Shoeshine runs afoul of Riff Raff, another dog and gets picked up by Jim Belushi who was a guard at the lab. Belushi's son discovers that Shoeshine has all these powers and eventually Shoeshine becomes Underdog, who will once again battle Sinister.

Once you decided that under dog was going to be a real dog you've sort of limited yourself as to whether the film was going to work or not. For me the film half works and half doesn't. The part that doesn't is all of the stuff where you see Shoeshine, the dog, as a dog with his master. Some of the repartee is funny, but it just drags on and on as we get introduced to Sweet Polly and her mistress and we go through all the typical lets see what you can do stuff. Its a deadly 20 or 25 minutes and effectively kills the film. Its painfully dull and feels like it takes forever to get through it, which considering the film is say 75 minutes sans credits, is something you don't want to do.

The parts that are good are anything with Simon Bar Sinister (Peter Dinklage is a blast) and anything where Underdog goes into action. Some how somewhere they managed to find a way to be both twistedly true to the spirit of the cartoon and to update it. Of course I could be wrong since the middle section is so dull, but I think not, since I do look forward to catching the end of this again on cable.

As a whole its probably as awful as some people have said, but if you can wait for cable where you can stumble on the good parts, this is an okay cartoon to film adaption. (But wait for cable-really)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.

One of the worst films I've ever seen !.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I enjoyed the film, and the fact that it aimed rather high in dealing with some sophisticated material. I saw the film in a preview screening, and it wasn't ruined by any silly video boxes that spoiled the ending. The performances were quite good, especially Andrew McCarthy in a more mature roll. I also enjoyed the look of the film which gave it a mysterious, forboding air. I also enjoyed some of the "twists" in the plot, and don't want to give too much away in case other countries' video boxes don't give it all away! The script was a little over the top at times, but I appreciated the fact that the film-makers weren't afraid to challenge the audiences with interesting and puzzling questisons regarding the roll of faith in our world. And, while some might find the ending a little too open-ended, I appreciated the fact that the movie refused to tie everything up neatly with a bow. That's not how life works.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A brilliant professor and his sidekick journey to the center of the earth in a huge machine which screws its way to the core. There, naturally, they find all kinds of things that are intent on killing and eating them. Plus, of course, a love interest for the young sidekick. Ho hum, does the plot never take a different tack?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This film is a classic seventies cop flick that for some reason has been sadly overlooked. It is basically French Connection meets Bullit.

Roy Scheider plays the head of an elite group of detectives, known as the "Seven Ups" 

One of their men is discovered during an undercover op and is killed.

Scheider and his team must find his killers. They become involved in a battle with the mob.

The highlight of the film has to be the car chase, obviously included to cash in on the success of Bullit. However, this car chase outshines Bullitt due to its length, speed and sheer excitement.It's a breathtaking roller-coaster ride that ends rather unexpectedly and spectacularly. Don't miss this little gem !!
The main cast:

Vlastimil Brodský .... Frantisek Hána Stella Zázvorková .... Emílie Hánová Stanislav Zindulka .... Eda

Director Vladimir Michalek gives this charming story of elderly folks enchanting twists that make the characters appealing, really universal.

Frantisek Hana is retired and on a pension, his previous occupation unknown. He lives in a very nice apartment with his wife of forty-four years, Emilie. His son Jara covets the spacious apartment as a problem-solver as he needs to house one of his ex-wives and several of their children. The son isn't a vicious schemer, just a guy with one past spouse too many and a blind eye to the attachment his dad has for the flat (which he moved into after relinquishing a previous residence to the son).

Hana and his also elderly close friend, Ed, spend there more than ample free time doing small con jobs not for money but for the pleasure of putting one over on easily duped folks like estate agents. A favorite ploy is for Hana to act the part of a retired divo of New York's Metropolitan Opera returning home in need of a sprawling mansion. Ed is his companion as gullible realtors fall all over themselves proffering chauffeured limousines and fine French restaurant meals in hope of a lucrative sale.

When not engaged in well-planned scams, the duo engage in quick ploys such as pretending to be railroad security agents so as to snatch kisses from breathless and ticketless teens trying to sneak onto trains. Chaste kisses, that is: there's no lechery here.

Hana's long-suffering wife is obsessed with saving enough money to insure that the couple, individually and jointly, have a grand funeral, an event the life-loving Frantisek is in no hurry to experience.

Disagreements about money and Frantisek's promiscuous disposition of marital funds lead to a crisis whose resolution rings both real and endearing. Michalek fishes for the viewer's emotions but he does it openly, honestly and effectively.

"Autumn Spring," subtitled of course, is a product of an increasingly vibrant Czech cinema. It wasn't shown widely in the U.S. but its availability on DVD will, hopefully, bring this affecting flick to a wide audience. Sadly, Brodsky recently succumbed to cancer so this movie is a valedictory to a fine actor who imbued his character with a passion for life's pleasures that must have reflected the actor's own values.

9/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is about as stupid as it gets.

A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in "Scary Movie" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked "to safety", the other one "to sure death" (I am reciting from memory).

And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked "Sure Death". 

Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ... 

If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.

Add mercilessly overplaying "actors" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.

The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from "While She was out" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters.
When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.

There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
this movie is honestly the worst piece of rubbish i have ever seen. this is slow, plot less and boring. the cinematographer deserved to be shot. There were various aspects of unintentional comedy, one of which was Jared being oddly camp. Raised many laughs but also many yawns. don't watch with anyone, anytime any place. If u hate someone, recommend they buy or rent this. big waste of time and money. Thanks Gus Van Sant...not. i cant think of anything else to say except Don't ever see this movie, it will make u want to jump off a cliff. Hope Gus and his mates read this comment before it's too late and he makes a sequel or some other catastrophe with what appeared to be shot with a camera phone.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Awful! Awful! Awful! Drab, unimaginative, predictable - and with all the usual suspects. Exactly the sort of film the Irish Film industry shouldn't be making. And with the added bonus of a treacle-coated ending. A sickening example of how talent & originality is by-passed in favour of an almost aggressive mediocrity. Yes - the children are sweet. Yes - it almost looks like it's done professionally. But this is film making by numbers, a direct smash and grab on what the director obviously thinks is 'success' - a film which patronises and despises the audience. It's quite amazing that Working Title would pour £3m into this rubbish. But then, they paid for Love Actually. Don't waste your money.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!
Determine the sentiment:

Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot 

**** The Carey Treatment (3/29/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.

As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.

Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan.

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

positive
The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In a film as successful as this, it is difficult to single out any one factor. All departments work in perfect union to create on of the most moving human dramas ever put on film. 

The production is a tribute to the ensemble efforts of the writers, producer, cast and crew. To name but a few, the magnificent score of Hugo Friedhofer is a subliminal marvel, the subtle yet striking photography of Greg Toland, and the unbelievably effective direction by William Wyler all combine with an ideal cast to create an American classic.

The DVD format version is a special treat to view. What a pleasure to see "The Best Years of Our Lives" so beautifully preserved for generations to come to enjoy.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.

Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.

My IMDb Rating: 7/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Slick, tidy, and well-made old school version of how a great international thriller should be made. Determined to nail a feared global terrorist who is known as "Carlos the Jackal", Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, "Without Limits", "Space Cowboys"), a CIA operative and his Israeli counterpart, Amos (Ben Kingsley, "Gandhi", "Sexy Beast") get a noble Naval officer, Annibal Ramirez (Aidan Quinn, "Music of the Heart"), to become Carlos and use him in a daring plot to get the KGB to kill the real Carlos, because he took an offer from the CIA. Sutherland and Kingsley are both good here, but the movie really belongs to Quinn here, who embodies himself here (in a dual role). Director Christian Duguay and cinematographer David Franco provide another great asset of the film here with Hitchcockian-like suspense and great sights of the world.
I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Keys to the VIP is one of the most entertaining, informative and hilarious shows that is on television right now. The idea is original, and well executed, as it manages to preserve the reality aspect, but still remain entertaining. All of the judges have a razor wit. They're not the nicest at all times, but if you're looking for comfort, go watch a chick flick. Say what you like about validity of the show, but it is absolutely real. I know people who have competed on the show, and they have confirmed this. 

If you want to laugh, watch this show. It is on of the best comedy shows ever made.
The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.

If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.

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

negative
I was really excited about seeing "Cold Mountain". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!

I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly "destined" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.

Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's "evil" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!

By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an Über-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?

I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is "like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie", and Ada's father says "I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument". These "observations" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was "a lie" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.

Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clichés and banalities. "Small moments like a bag of diamonds?" Ugh!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8/10.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.
You've got to watch this movie! It is so bad it actually is great.

You've got your crazy but gutsy captain who of course is having an affair with his worn out used to be gorgeous copilot. And of course the mid air collision occurs when the captain's enemy and rivalis along for the ride to geYou've got your ex Vietnam Vet who is can't handle the pressure of another mid air collision and crash landing. Then you've got your old crazy Army Air corp buddy who is flying the chase plane and trying to well I can't tell you what he's trying to do. The plane keeps going up, up and well and then you've got your greedy and immoral corporate engineer and then you've got your Ice Station Zebra cold and then Lucky saves the bad guy from drowing so they can land the plane! aND IT DOESN'T END --- IT JUST GOES ON AND ON! You've got to watch this. It's great! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! DID THEY ACTUALLY SHOW THIS ON COMMERCIAL TELEVISION AND HOW IT WAS EVER SHOWN ON CABLE.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A great performance by Clint Eastwood and particularly John Malkovich in my opinion his finest one to date. Malkovich had this one nailed right down to the floor it's incredible. Eastwood is Agent Mike Horrigan, an aged and cynical Secret Service Agent who is finishing out his career busting counterfeiters and chasing down routine assignments. But one assignment which appears to be run of the mill at first turns complicated and deadly serious. Horrigan and his new partner Al are sent to investigate a threat on the President by a "wacko". As fate would have it Horrigan has stumbled not upon a delusional nut but a professional lone wolf who has a big bone to pick with the White House. As Horrigan dives deeper into "Booth's" world he attracts the bad guy's unwanted attention and unbridled admiration for him. Horrigan was JFK's top agent and present in Dallas, Texas when he was assassinated and blames himself for what happened. Now he feels it's up to him to stop the current Head of State from joining the list of dead Presidents. But this killer has turned the tables on Horrigan and now he's the hunted one in a life or death cat and mouse game. Who will win? Who will die? It's a race against time to save the Pres from a chameleon-like enemy who can get to anyone. My favorite Secret Service movie and as good a nail biter as any.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It resembles so much to movies like PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS that is impossible to think that Tarantino's films weren't a source of inspiration to this THURSDAY. However for a low cost B-Series movie it's not bad. The plot about gangsters is captivating and funny and it also has a bit of dark humor and sarcasm we can find in PULP FICTION. The resources weren't many fore sure but the film is well produced. The acting also is good. I enjoyed the scene when the girl was sat on the sofa teasing the doctor... It was hot and funny at the same time! The soundtrack is nice too. I didn't hear too many songs but the ones I heard I liked. I score it 7/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Ettore Scola's masterful rendering of this epic of the heart deserves a much wider audience. It is a worthy successor to the risorgimento classics such as Vischonti's Senso and Il Gattopardo, as well as Rosselini's Vanina,Vanini. The 19th century is indeed a fruitful source for Italian filmmakers. The period settings and trappings are beautifully realized here, but the story is timeless and could occur in any period. What is so intriguing in this story is that the hero becomes trapped in a claustrophobic situation in which he finds himself the vigorously pursued object of desire and he is quite powerless to extricate himself from the alarming circumstances. Handsome and callow Giorgio (Giraudeau) is frustrated by his inability to visit his charming but light-minded married mistress (Antonelli) and falls prey to the dangerous passion of enamored Fosca (D'Obici), the ugly and sickly daughter of his stern commander (Girotti). The resulting anguish and ensuing tragedy this unlikely pair undergoes make them both understandable, pitiful and immensely sympathetic to viewers. Bernard Giraudeau's stellar performance will captivate and leave a lasting impression. Not to be missed.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.

I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.

The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.

This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.

Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.

He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.

I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.

I give it 0 / 10.
THE CELL (2000) Rating: 8/10

The Cell, like Antz, must be watched twice to be appreciated. The first time I saw this film I thought it was mediocre, but the film had such a lasting impression on me after viewing, I decided I had to rent it again. I did, and I found the film to be much more likeable. The Cell is not for everyone, but it divides its stories up with quality and is a visually intelligent film that dreams up images and plot ideas that could not be matched. The film's script can be clunky at times, as can the acting, but the visuals are ingenious and bring the engaging story to an exotic and intriguing life. The Oscar nominated makeup is also daring and careful, while the beautiful costumes and utterly brilliant set decoration went unnoticed. Tarsem Singh who has also directed music videos, goes totally crazy with his direction and it results well. He has major talent and this film has a lot of potential if you give it a chance. Overall, The Cell is a powerful, disturbing and avoids being too tacky which makes it a great, pleasurable watch.

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

positive
A fine ironic visual gag takes place in front of the spectacular backdrop of a twirling windmill. But who are those people who rush across screen at the end: customers? relatives? One of the earliest enigmas in cinematic history perhaps. Well worth a minute of your time.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.
Although the acting was excellent, I spent the whole movie waiting for the nasty boy who caused so much grief to so many of the characters, get his final nemesis, and instead everyone else suffered except him and he gets the job of the husband whose wife's death he causes by running away from his friends, wins the girl he gave an overdose to and tried to rape. Even his friend gives money to his father, but the butterfly effect completely fails to return to its cause.

This is a very dark film as each character that gets affected, suffers never ending depression. None of the normal avenues for relief seem to be effective and the only thing the authorities seem to do is give out quantities of stress pills.

If this is normal behaviour in Finland now, I'm never going to go back just in case I am affected by such an amoral butterfly and end up as destroyed as the characters in this film were.

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

negative
A group of douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly. 

Literally cliché-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.

Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A 

My Grade: D- 

Where I saw it: TMCX
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). 

Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.

It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.

The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.

This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Milo is an overlooked & underrated horror flick from the late 90's but the feel and atmosphere is more that of an 80's horror flick. Seems a bunch of little girls are taken to "see things" at the office of Milo's father, a gynecologist, and as a reward for getting to see what's there in jars (yes, a gynecologist plus something else...) one girl plays "doctor" with Milo. Hmm, his first patient and he lost her. Now Milo is a creepy little kid that always wears a yellow rain slicker, rain or shine, and he talks funny....but that's not all that's strange about him. Fast forward to the present where these girls are adults and there's a wedding planned for one of them but tragedy strikes and leaves one girl that came in from out of town with a choice of whether or not to replace her friend as a school teacher, which she does. And then strange things begin to happen again. Which of course involve this little kid in a rain slicker. This isn't overly violent or graphic but has a distinct creepiness that you don't find in many modern horror flicks, and it's well worth seeing. One wonders why it's so hard to find any good horror flicks in this day & age but here's one that's criminally overlooked and definitely worth your time if you check it out. 8 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.

Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.

Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.

Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative