cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.
Susan Sarandon. She made this movie for me. I've never appreciated her acting more than as I did in this movie. She really acted as though she were Adele August. I can appreciate actors and actresses who leave their individual persona and create a character who's truly believable. 

Natalie Portman as Ann August helped create the ideal antagonist as their characters developed through the movie. The movie was about them so the other characters were peripheral.

I gave this movie an eight rating, but Susan received a ten from me because of her performance. As far as relationship movies go, Beaches and Terms of Endearment had a greater impact on me than this movie, but I highly recommend it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.

Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.

But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.

2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.

3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.

4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.

5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.

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

negative
I saw this film at the Boston Internation Festival of Women's Cinema last night, and was saddened to hear Ms. Troche tell us (in her Q&A after the screening) that she doesn't expect to see too much US distribution, due to her insistence on including all of the so-called "gay content". It was a FANTASTICALLY entertaining comedy, and it just seems to me that American audiences might enjoy it in much the same way they enjoyed "The Full Monty", so it's really unfortunate and kind of ridiculous that a few shots of two boys kissing is keeping it away from mainstream theaters. Wonderful cast, FABULOUS script, and of course, Rose Troche's direction make this one of the funniest films I've seen.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene

The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison. 

If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)

The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be "dumb-funny", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show "Salute Your Shorts" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...
Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.

The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.

I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.


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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I've seen this movie more than once and it's worth it. For those of you who like martial arts and overcoming internal conflict, this is a worthy choice. After seeing this movie, I wanted to be a more productive member of society because I could relate to the inner turmoil of a girl looking for acceptance and needing a path to follow. Of course, Mr. Miyagi always provides his sage advice. 2 thumbs up!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "Ninja III" is not quite as bad as "Enter The Ninja", the first part of this "trilogy", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic "The Exorcist" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the "dominated" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well,this movie is really "PLUMPED" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if "PLUMP" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly "Funny" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!

In overall PLUMP Fiction,is "PLUMPABLE" but you wont gather much at all!

Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!

So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its "PLUMPABLE",but you will only gather a few "PLUMPS" from it!

Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.

Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.

The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).

The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]
I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.

For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.

Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.

The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.

Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.

Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.

Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.

What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen. 

The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.

See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I was first introduced to John Waters films by seeing "Female trouble" on IFC. I was disgusted but for some sick reason i enjoyed it. Then, i picked up the Pink Flamingos DVD in the John Waters Boxed Set. The movie is about Babs Johnson "The Filthiest Person Alive" who lives in a trailer in Maryland with her obese egg obsessed mother,and her deranged son "Crackers". In the movie you will see such sick sights as sex with chickens, drag-queens, people eating feces, torture, and all other sorts of random humiliation. The film has a soundtrack from 60's rock and roll artists. The only problem is that some parts of the film seem to drag on and can get a little boring. I found "Female Trouble" a little more fun. Rated NC-17 for Explicit sex, violence, and disturbing images. Enjoy.
The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"Cover Girl" is the best musical Rita Hayworth ever made. Ms. Hayworth will always be remembered for "Gilda", however, the next movie would be "Cover Girl". The story is great. It is about a dancer who wants to be a cover girl and makes it big in show business. She does it without the help of her talented dancer/director boyfriend (Gene Kelly). Mr. Kelly is given the chance to choreograph the musical numbers. The dances are spectacular. It is fun to see Phil Silvers, a comic, do the musical numbers with Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Kelly. 

The supporting cast is perfect. Lee Bowman is given a chance to be an interesting third wheel, the other boyfriend.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The Patriot is a well thought out, well produced film, that will draw the viewer into the story directly, and keep them involved to the very end. Granted, it is not in the same vein as Under Siege, et. al., but this is definitely the trademark film of what might be described as Seagal's second era of films. Not so much Action movies with a nod to a story thrown in for good measure, but a good story, matched with a point, and injected with some of Seagal's unimitable action sequences. Is this the kind of film that hardcore action junkies will enjoy? Probably not. But for those of us who not only like our action, but also can appreciate a well told story, this is a big step forward for Seagal. It's almost like the transformation Clint Eastwood made as he tried to step out from underneath the shadow of his "Dirty Harry" series. Either man, had he continued in the singular direction they were headed, would have forever been keyholed in in specific role and guaranteed the brevity of their careers...
This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.

Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.

I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I just rented this movie from the video store last night. It being new and not released long ago here, the rent was only overnight. Me, my little sis, and my older brother who usually hates watching these kind of movies sat down and watched. Once the movie started and after sitting there watching it for a while we were all laughing historically. Even my brother. This movie is hilarious, I actually laughed. No matter how funny some movies are... even if I think its funny I sometimes can't seem to laugh. But this movie... I laughed. My brother ended up thinking it was the best "that type of movie" he had seen. I ended up watching the movie again about 2 or 3 hours later.
Very nice movie! I was browsing the channels on my TV and I usually ignore the channels that air drama movies but then I saw this channel that airs old school movies and it is where I saw this movie. At first, when I saw the title "The Cure" I thought it's gonna be boring but then I got hooked when I saw Brad Renfro was in this movie (because of one of my favorite movie of all time is "The Client" where Brad also stars). Then the scenes was getting better and better. The story is so beautiful and very touching! I cried hard in this movie which I don't usually do. Great casting! and there are so many beautiful lines/quotes in this movie which is very striking and made me cry hard! Now, I bought my own copy on DVD and I always recommend it to everyone!

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

positive
A middle aged man, Robert Jordan, set in his ways, takes on a boy scout troop after his predecessor leaves under duress. Jordan takes on the pack mostly to learn what the boys like so he can revive his flagging radio program which is losing it's appeal to the younger set. He has a rough go at first with the boys, especially so with Mike, an 8 year old who forms an attachment for the older man which is anything but reciprocated. Do things work out for Jordan and the scouts? Check out this entertaining and amusing film from the old days.

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

positive
Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.) 

So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read "more". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was "less than a 4.0".

This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.
Determine the sentiment:

The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.

Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I've seen Director's Cut version and can be nothing but content. Excellent acting (esp. Cole Hauser, I was sad about little space for Claudia Black though), subtle visual effects and photography in overall, believable plot (considering the genre) without a lot of logical holes, really non-predictable twists, build-up characters. These are the greatest assets of the movie. Combined with style - some may consider this movie a B-grade effort but I would disagree with that. The whole thing really is very original and stylish.

And even though I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, this tough guy role of Riddick suited him well. Can't wait for Chronicles of Riddick, it's really cool this flick's gonna have a sequel...

9/10 if you ask me
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it aloneand crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry "Rain" Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory.
I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at the cinemas for a wider audience.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and a third one is coming our way this summer.

The first one, which was released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable, there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however, takes all of these aspects and excels upon them.

The action first of all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force of the fighting.

The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney, however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid.

The music... I think that's where this movie fails. The original composer/conductor for the TV show was used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to the action. But, except for a few violin/string pieces towards the end and some choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything special.

The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and exciting.

Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be, it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because... I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers.
What's an example of a movie review?

"The Cell" is an exotic masterpiece, a dizzying trip into not only the vast mind of a serial killer, but also into one of a very talented director. This is conclusive evidence of what can be achieved if human beings unleash their uninhibited imaginations. This is boldness at work, pushing aside thoughts to fall into formulas and cliches and creating something truly magnificent. This is the best movie of the year to date.

I've read numerous complaints about this film, anywhere from all style and no substance to poorly cast characters and bad acting. To negatively criticize this film is to miss the point. This movie may be a landmark, a tradition where future movies will hopefully follow. "The Cell" has just opened the door to another world of imagination. So can we slam the door in its face and tell it and its director Tarsem Singh that we don't want any more? Personally, I would more than welcome another movie by Tarsem, and would love to see someone try to challenge him.

We've all heard talk about going inside the mind of a serial killer, and yes, I do agree that the "genre" is a bit overworked. The 90s were full of movies trying to depict what makes serial killers tick; some of them worked, but most failed. But "The Cell" does not blaze down the same trail, we are given a new twist, we are physically transported into the mind and presented with nothing less than a fascinating journey of the most mysterious subject matter ever studied.

I like how the movie does not bog us down with too much scientific jargon trying to explain how Jennifer Lopez actually gets to enter the brain of another. Instead, she just lies down on a laboratory table and is wrapped with what looks like really long Twizzlers and jaunted into another entity. "The Cell" wants to let you "see" what it's all about and not "how" it's all about, and I guess that's what some people don't like. True, I do like explanations with my movies, but when a movie ventures onto new ground you must let it do what it desires and simply take it in.

I noticed how the film was very dark when it showed reality, maybe to contrast the bright visuals when inside the brain of another. Nonetheless, the set design was simply astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if this film took home a few Oscars in cinematography, best costumes, best director and the like. If it were up to me it'd at least get nominated for best picture.

I've noticed that I've kind of been repeating myself. Not because there's nothing else to say, but because I can't stress enough how fantastic I thought "The Cell" was. If you walk into the movie with a very open mind and to have it taken over with wonders and an eye-popping feast then you are assured a good time. I guess this film was just a little too much for some people, writing it off as "weird" or "crazy". I am very much into psychology and the imagination of the human mind, so it was right down my alley. Leaving the theater, I heard one audience member say "Whoever made that movie sure did a lot of good drugs." If so, I want what he was smoking.

**** (out of 4)
Write a negative movie review.

The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.

THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.
Determine the sentiment:

Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a success. Madonna states that "Some people don't want that she's successful both as a pop star and a movie-star". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny to watch it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film is titled "Junior Pilot" here on IMDb but "Final Approach" at Netflix. Go figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line.

In any case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed.

The young actors give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist "Ricky" with quite well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft and sensitive "Shashi" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well.

As is typical of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure.

This movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their once-youthful perspective.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration. 

Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.
Love Jones is one of the best movies I've experienced. 

The main element that sticks out to me is the fact that it is very well-directed. I have studied this film in it's entirety - with watching movies more than once, certain things dawn on you subconsciously - the direction of this movie, as well as the writing, is chic, hip, and artful! I am in love with the direction. The scene where Larenz Tate and Nia Long are riding the motorcycle through north Chicago at night is astonishing. The director of this movie DESERVED awards for his great job.

Love Jones is a classy and sexy film. It highlights the fact that we can be people who love, who have flaws, who love living, learning, and just being us without the hype. Being our Natural selves.

The poetry is wonderful, but the story line, the dialog, and the scenes really make this movie.

This movie deserves to be seen. It is a great movie for lovers and friends to sit back and watch, or, the hopeless romantic (like myself) to sit back and enjoy alone on a Friday or Saturday night. Any day of the week where peace, solitude, and a little entertainment is needed, Love Jones is what I recommend.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I loved this film and recommend it to anyone who like a good spy spoof and who thought Johnny English was an embarrassment. This is the film JE should have been. But it's based on an old French films series so it's not really Bond related.

The production is brilliant, you'll almost believe the film was shot back in the 60's. It even has that same pastel kind of colouring films had in those days. Jean Dujardin plays his part with just the right amount of dumbness and naivety, not with ham fisted pantomime silliness like Rowan Atkinson And even if you don't like the film, you will want to see it for Berenice Bejo. Ooh la la! She is the hotness ...

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them.

After seeing Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have a biased view like me.
Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is "different", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that "she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film". "She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different".

This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative