cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a funny one overall. "The Butcher Boy" has lots of laughs and is an example of pure old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a matter of course.

The first half of the film takes place in a general store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety, skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much.

Buster Keaton is a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile, his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses.

The second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school. A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to "be girls." buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway, helping St. John.

The ending of "The Butcher Boy" becomes a little emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest, it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.

The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).

The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.

There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!

Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace. 

My rating: 4/10
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.

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

negative
Chaplin is a doughboy in his final film of 1918, a doughboy who can not seem to get the marching down straight. He spends time "over there" in World War One trenches. Several gags stand out: Limburger cheese as a makeshift grenade for one. The cramped quarters of the barracks in the trenches and when Chaplin and his mates are washed out of their bunks by flooding are highlights. Chaplin ends up capturing several German soldiers single-handed, and he spanks the German commander for refusing a cigarette. When asked how he did it, Chaplin replies that he surrounded them. Chaplin hides behind enemy lines as a tree of all things, and those scenes are very very funny. He escapes to a bombed house where he meets up with a French girl played by Edna Purviance. He's tracked down by German soldiers, escapes from them again, and Purviance is arrested for assisting him. Chaplin is able to pull a fast one by bopping a soldier and using the soldier's uniform. He ends up saving Purviance of course and capturing the Kaiser in the process. Along the way, Chaplin employs some sight gags and slapstick in turning back the German soldiers. With this film, Chaplin explored the location possibilities in filming while maintaining the audience's attention for closer to feature length time, something his contract with the Mutual Film Corporation disallowed him. The film also allowed him to poke fun at the enemy, something he would again do to greater effect in The Great Dictator. *** of 4 stars.

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

positive
I just finished watching this (last weekend) and found it absolutely hillarious, some of the scenes I just couldn't stop laughing at! Dennis is soooo amazingly thick sometimes, and just says the stoopidest things...but at the same time he's just being cool to impress his girlfriend (who gets arrested anyway!) The beach scenery is very tranquil...until along comes Robbie Coltrane...! Not the greatest movie ever made but certainly something to think about renting on a Saturday night when you haven't got much else to do (like I did). You might need to hunt around for it though - I was lucky, as my local video store stocks it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Flashdance" meets "Meatballs III" or maybe it should just be called "Meatballs IV". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: "This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it".

"Gimme An F" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her "Clueless" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific "Teen Wolf Too" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in "Animal House". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.

Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of "The Lucky Ducks" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named "The Demons". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.

Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.

While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from "Mad Max". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.

An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures.

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

negative
This movie is the Latino Godfather. An unlikely mobster bridges the gap to some unlikely alliances and forms an empire. I enjoyed the action and gunfights along with the brash acting and colorful characters. This movie is no Oscar winner, but definitely entertaining. Hey, who needs an Oscar anyway? 

Chapa has got some balls to direct& act ( I think he produced it too?) this movie. Reminds me of another filmmaker who likes to do it all, Robert Rodrigez. Keep it up, is there a sequel in the works? There are a bunch of strings that need to be tied. Son comes back and avenges dads death?

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I have been watching "LOST" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the "bad boy" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia
Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's "awesome" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like "EVOO" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me.
What's an example of a movie review?

By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.
What's an example of a movie review?

If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) engage in a battle of wits for control of a Switz inventor's newest bomb-sight creation. Holmes wants to safeguard it for the British while Moriarty isn't above selling out to the Nazis. 

While no doubt many fans will be disappointed to see Holmes updated to the 1940s war-time setting, this particular film proves light-hearted fun which doesn't wallow in wartime propaganda as it might well have done. Dennis Hoey's Inspector Lestrade and Nigel Bruce's Dr. Watson do tend to steal the show as their characters bumbling methods consistently provide delightful comic relief. The sparring between Holmes and Moriraty is colorful and well thought out to boot. Atwill does well enough as Moriarty even if he's not as memorable as some others who played the role. 

While this provides nothing especially new or thrilling for fans of the series, it is a wonderful escape from reality, somewhat appropriate for 1942 in my opinion, that mirrors many movie serial adventures of the 1930s and 1940s but boasts a more compact, less repetitive plot. And all this is done while still remaining true to the basic spirit of Sherlock Holmes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have a hard time putting into words just how wonderful this was. Once in a while you see a film that just sticks with you. "You Are Alone" is that movie (for me). The film is constantly in my head and in my heart. I replay the scenes mentally every day and analyze them and go through the emotions all over again, as if I am seeing it for the first time.

There is nothing I did not like about the movie. Amazing soundtrack!!! The ending was perfect. Very emotionally stirring!!! It was compelling and riveting.

I adored Jessica Bohl and her performance was the greatest I have ever witnessed. I admired Brittany's strength (what a strong woman).

The tag line is "When your darkest moments come to life". We never know what we are capable of doing. Everyone says oh I would never do that, when really we have no idea what we would do in a situation. We are very capable of anything and this movies delves straight into that subject. The honesty of the movie may be my absolute favorite part.

Thank you Gorman Becherd for a perfect piece of art!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.

I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10.
The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.

The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.

It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.

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

negative
The magnitude of the Stalingrad tragedy is concisely presented in the end note of the movie: "In the battle of Stalingrad, more than one million people were killed in action, froze to death or died of starvation: Russians, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Austrians. Of the 260,000 surrounded men of the Sixth Army, 91,00o were taken prisoners, of whom only 6,000 returned to their homeland, years later.

What the story does not tell was that Fieldmarshall Paulus, who surrendered, did not share all the hardship of the captivity of his men. He had a special treatment as the highest ranking prisonner taken by the Soviet army. When, during his presence at the Nuremberg trials he was asked about the fate of the 91,000 prisoners, he declared that they were fine. He was freed after the war and died in the East Germany.

The film only presents the first part of the tragedy, the actual battle of Stalingrad. However, for an entire picture, the fate of the 91,000 prisonners should also not be forgotten.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release.

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

negative
The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.

I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.

I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey.
After a group of young friends experience car trouble whilst travelling off the beaten track, they accept an offer of help from lonely local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors), owner of a nearby museum full of historical wax mannequins. Once at the creepy roadside attraction, the friends are stalked by a mask-wearing lunatic who can bring the museum's dummies to life through the power of the mind.

Tourist Trap's bad guy is a demented cross between The Texas Chain Saw Massacre's Leatherface and Anthony, the scary kid from the classic Twilight Zone episode 'It's a Good Life', whilst the plot is a blend of elements from the aforementioned TCM, Hitchcock's Psycho, and House of Wax. The atmosphere and execution of Tourist Trap, however, is so totally off-kilter that, in this respect, it's virtually impossible to draw comparison with other earlier movies.

Director David Schmoeller's continually inventive and unpredictable treatment of his own script gives the film a distinctly nightmarish quality, and with a brilliant left-field performance from Connors, an impossibly creepy score from Pino Donaggio, a collection of truly unsettling mannequins with detachable jaws, and the presence of super sexy Tanya Roberts, who spends the film in (and briefly out of) tiny denim hot-pants and a figure hugging boob-tube, Tourist Trap is a totally unforgettable and ultimately one-of-a-kind horror experience well deserving of its cult following.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.

Avoid this movie like a bad cold.
Write a positive movie review.

Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Let me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1/10. Not worth your time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).

What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.

Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Mark Blankfield (from the old late night TV show "Fridays")plays Dr. Daniel Jekyll, a mild-mannered surgeon who invents a powder that turns him into a drug-crazed party animal. This was not, of course, his intent, he had higher aspirations, but he goes with the flow. This is actually a fairly stupid movie, but it's also pretty fun. Of course, once the good doctor realizes what he's done, he's ashamed, but he's also not above doing it all again & running through Hollywood as a crazed sex machine with frizzed out hair & gold chains. There's a few subplots like Jekyll's fiancée, who is the daughter of the head doctor at Our Lady of Suffering and Pain, Jekyll's employer. And there's Tim Thomerson as a plastic surgeon with seemingly few "real" parts and a taste for men, and a rich old man whose situation is a parody of Howard Hughes, and who is going to make several people rich with a complete set of organ transplants, including testicles. Yeah, the humor is raunchy and silly, and overall the whole thing is fairly tasteless, but if you're not above a quick wallow in the gutter, you'll probably like it just fine. Now available on DVD too, for the first time! Woohoo! 7 out of 10.
When a bomber, a patricide, a pornographer, and a mad biker, together with various other forms of social scum, have had enough of their sh** infested cell, they spot a rat and look for the hole. Escaping from the sewage the group of 9 souls, take advantage of their new found freedom and head for civilization. What soon follows is not surprising. Complete mayhem and terror follow in their wake. It seems that each has some unfinished business to take care of.

Loosely based on The Great Escape, 9 SOULS is by far in the top 5 best films I've seen this year. Running at right around 2 hours 9 SOULS will deliver a story so powerful it'll literally leave you breathless. The beautiful, yet subtle, use of the rolling country sides adds the realism that is expected from this story. The vision of director Toshiaki Toyoda (Blue Spring, Porno Star), is completely mind boggling as he implements a sense of pity towards the characters. As quickly as each character grasps their dream, it's as quick as it's torn from them. Now, all responsibility of the success of this film should not fall solely on the shoulders of the director, yet props must go to the actors as well. This film was full of excellent acting from top to bottom. Ryuhei Matsuda (the son of Miyuki Matsuda of Audition) delivers a stellar performance, and seems to bring some of his mothers eeriness to the screen.

I must give props to Artsmagic DVD as well. This is the 6th film of theirs I've seen now, and they seem to get better and better each DVD. The sound quality is perfect and the picture; clean and crisp. It's very annoying trying to watch a film that is too dark in transfer, so the discs from theses cats are nice.

Bottom line is this film will soon receive masterpiece status by viewers' world wide. Keep an eye out in 2005 for 9 SOULS; it's really amazing film to watch.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A vg Brit rom-com, one to watch if you can get your hands on a copy. Quirky and often surprising, this is not the best of Brady's films (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is by far the funniest), though it does have a unique charm. Well written the story veers off into a few dead ends but mostly surfaces with a new plot high. You know from the start how it's going to end, but when it comes it is honest and very open ended, a realistic and credible ending, the end seemed like a beginning, enjoyable and left me wanting more.
This film is truly execrable in all departments. Script, acting, plot, direction and editing are all uniformly awful. I give it 1 out of 10 simply because people turned up to make it. I would have given it 2 out of 10 if they had all stayed at home instead. Avoid at all costs!

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.
Sweet, entertaining tale of a young 17 1/2 year old boy, controlled by by an overbearing religious mother and withdrawn father, and how he finds himself through his work with a retired, eccentric and tragic actress. Very well acted, especially by Julie Walters. Rupert Grint plays the role of the teenage boy well, showing his talent will last longer than the Harry Potter series of films. Laura Linney plays his ruthlessly strict mother without a hint of redemption, so there's no room to like her at all. But the film is a very entertaining film, made well by the British in the style of the likes of Keeping Mum and Calendar Girls.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Babs Johnson (Divine) lives in a trailer with her son Crackers, her daughter Cotton and her mother Edie (Edie Massey). She's in competition with a couple named Connie and Raymond Marbles (Mink Stole, David Lochary) to be named the filthiest person alive. The film shows their attempts to outdo each other.

This film is very much NOT for everyone. It's a in your face no holds barred assault in bad taste. Crackers has sex with a woman with a live chicken between them while his sister watches; the Marbles pick up female hitchhikers, impregnate them, keep them chained in the basement and sell the babies to lesbian couples; Divine and family have a party which includes cannibalism etc etc. It's disgusting but, in a way, not unwatchable. It's SO over the top and is so unapologetic about it that it's kind of fascinating. As director John Waters might say, it's bad taste done well. Also it's kind of amusing to watch--the acting is so wretched (especially by Massey) that you just watch it in disbelief. A friend laughed out loud at how bad Massey was (she improved in later pictures).

This is NOT for people who are easily offended. Even though it's over 30 years old it's STILL shocking. However if you have an open mind and can take a lot of extreme behaviour this is a must-see. The only part that really was too much is what Divine does at the very end.
I'm usually a fan of "art" and "foreign" films, but when I saw this one my reaction was "it must be called experimental because it makes no sense." The "action" is static, while at the same time it bounces from one location to another. There aren't enough titles to make it clear who is who and what their relationships are. Apparently the main point was to show that in the face of murder, adultery and generally weird and dissolute behavior, the cure offered by the powers that be is to banish a totally innocent black man.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
OK,I've seen over 100 Troma films, and some of them are pretty bad. "Sizzle Beach U.S.A." was horrible, and "I Was A Teenage TV Terrorist" was unwatchable, but this is THE WORST FILM IN THE TROMA LIBRARY!

A bunch of women are kept in a prison and tortured as they try to escape.

This is really terrible. Even as exploitation films go. Doris Wishman and Hershall Gordon Lewis would probably kill the director if they saw this poor excuse for an cult film. Avoid this movie at all costs.



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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.

The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).

A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like "Fun". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.

The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clichés put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero.
Ray is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Its such a shame that an important film like this is virtually unknown.

I don't think Alan Bates has done a better film than this.

Its never shown on television. The only time I can recall it being shown on British TV was in the summer of 1998. I have it on tape but sadly the quality isn't great due to a dodgy aerial at the time...

I remember wanting to see this film for some time before it appeared on TV. It was shown on Channel 4 in the early hours of the morning, thereby ensuring that it still remained unseen except for a very small audience.

I was living in Bristol at the time and it was ironic that, when I finally saw the film, I realised that I had walked past the VERY house where it was filmed several times before!! The film treads a fine line; a married couple attempting to make light of their tragic predicament of coping with their severely mentally handicapped daughter by laughing about it and even involving the child in their jokes.

The direction and the acting are so superb that the film is always compassionate and moving and is never in danger of lapsing into bad taste.

A couple of years ago I saw a clip of the filmed theatre production with Eddie Izzard in the role of Bri and Victoria Hamilton playing Sheila.

It showed Izzard improvising and larking about and Hamilton jokingly telling the audience to ignore him when he's being like this.

I maybe taking this out of context as I only saw a brief clip but having read the play and seen the film this is clearly such a delicate subject that such an approach is both insensitive and disrespectful.

Izzard was praised for his performance but I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.

It is perhaps surprising that such a successful play failed to find an audience when it was finally filmed.

This is one of the best British films of the 70s and hopefully it will be released on DVD one day.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Very good political thriller regarding the aftermath of terrorism and the using of political torture to obtain one's objectives in flushing out the terrorists.

The story is interwoven where two families are adversely affected by the terrorist events.

This is one of Meryl Streep's best roles in years. She plays a cold, calculating, cunning director of the CIA who allows these things to go on. She is out of the George Bush-Dick Cheney school of handling the war on terrorism. Had her part been expanded, Miss Streep certainly would have been up for an award at Oscar time.

Jake Gyllenhaal is our hero. A CIA agent who really can't take what's going on.

We have a terrorist who actually has a heart and it costs him his life in this well directed, finely paced film.

Alan Arkin appears briefly in the part of a conniving senator. Mr. Arkin seems to get better with age.
Determine the sentiment:

Deformed, aged female scientist kills fellow scientist in order to steal formulae for rejuvenating cells and reversing the aging process. She takes it and turns into the beautiful, evil Satanik (Magda Konopka) who goes around, seducing and murdering wealthy businessmen.

She dresses very stylishly in late-60s mod clothes and manipulates those around her, looking a lot like the late Marisa Mell from the DIABOLIK film. Coincidence??

However, in spite of all this, it's amateurish and sloppy without the James Bond pop-art gadgetry that DIABOLIK had had. Even the Madrid and Lake Geneva filming locations don't make up for this.

The soundtrack is by Manuel Parada & Roberto Pregadio and it isn't bad at all, consisting of lush orchestration with a little fuzz guitar used as an embellishment. Perfect for one of those European Loungecore CDs that came out in the 90s.

The Retromedia DVD also uses a substandard grainy color print that's in poor shape, with an explanation at the beginning saying that this was due to the age of the film. Bull ! They either didn't bother looking for a better source or they couldn't find one at all. There are only a few stills of Magda and that's it.

Sloppy & poor all around, this one gets a 3 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative