cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.

I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.

The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.

I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.

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

negative
If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Resurrection was made in the late 80's/early 90's, when crap sold as film in Hollywood.

I don't understand why people like Christopher Lambert. He speaks like he's reading off of cue cards and turns into a fountain whenever he has to emote. He was easily the movie's weakest aspect. The other actors were OK, nothing horrible.

It's easy to see where the majority of the budget went: the special effects. The killings look pretty professional, but hardly make up for the film's dullness.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Resurrection is a carbon copy of Se7en, but it certainly bears a certain resemblance to it. Centering on a religious-minded murderer on a modern crusade, the detectives investigating his work have to rely on Bible passages and Christian history to piece together the killer's puzzle. Resurrection, however, is bereft of Se7en's clever storytelling, cinematography, acting...well, everything that makes it good. Instead, Resurrection lies to the audience and uses the Scooby Doo method of mystery to surprise it.

In conclusion, Resurrection was about as bad as I expected it to be. I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie since I knew it would be bad going in, but...sue me.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

What a wonderful film, filled with eccentric, unique characters who are wonderfully realized by a great ensemble cast. The director also did a great job keeping the story held together, getting those wonderful performances (on not messing with them) and using music (and what wonderful music it is) to great effect. S. Epatha in the lead role is great. I had always heard what a brilliant stage actor she is, and although I have enjoyed her on Law and Order, this really shows what she can do with a filled out, complex role. Macy Gray is terrific, Mos Def, as usual, wonderful. Lou Gossett, great. Jimmy Smits, terrific, and doesn't try to pull focus because he's a star. A true piece of ensemble acting. 

Rent it, enjoy it, groove to it, and treasure it. Something special.
I find this film meretricious, tentative, lethargic, and skillfully a bad choice of entertainment on celluloid. But I admire the courage to throw away a script, turn the camera on, and act a fool. I find the inauspiciously performances, lighting, cinematography, sound, and whatever film school laws D' Urville Martin broke funny. Speaking from a film directors perspective there is times I just want to drop everything and have fun on the set. This film looks like fun. When other aspiring film directors ask me advice I just tell them to watch any film by Rudy Ray Moore. They always return a puzzled look asking me why not watch the masters Woody Allen, Scorsese, Lucas, Capra? I laugh and include that you always want to know what not to do in cinematic story telling first.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he "loves" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, "Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon." The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by "Spacehog" Band 

Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (..."Necks will be broke and whips will Crack"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than any Horror Movie.

10 out of 10

Em
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French "Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.

This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.
I was a huge "SNL" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character "Mongo," I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar "It's 'Saturday Night!!!'"
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was thrilled by the fresh (pun intended) synopsis of this film and looking forward to watch it. The first few shots introduce some of the characters as well as the main location where the stories take place; the gardening allotments. The movie looks fantastic. Colorful yet simple. Magical yet genuine. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes to figure out where the movie will go. We quickly figure out this will be a manipulative, sappy tale illustrating a bunch of jaded people set in their ways confronted by "nice victimized" refugees and that it will have a happy ending where the jaded people realize the error of their ways and accept these people. 

The characters, particularly the prejudiced ones, are very "comic-booky" in nature. The story focuses mainly on two refugee families. One of them is headed by a single mom played atrociously by Diveen Henry. I am saddened to say that any emotion that might have been felt toward her struggles were defused by what was memorably bad acting.

The other story is much more interesting and focuses on a father and his two children. All are scarred by their journey to this country by way of containers, where the wife and mother died but it is the husband who suffers the most. Benedict Wong gives a mind-blowing performance here. At first, his emotions are very subdued but as the story develops, he subtly makes us aware of the inner-struggles of his character. 

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just extremely boring. There were so many possibilities with this movie. There are several characters to keep track of, many of which might have potential but none of it is realized. Even worse, despite this movie being very much not Hollywoodian, some of the main plot threads are solved cheaply in a Hollywood b-grade way. Example:

Character A likes character B Character B rejects his advances No problem! Let's have character C declare her love for character A so we can all have a happy ending. Yawn. 

I liked very much the plot thread of the Asian family. That was well done. Unfortunately, the whole allotment business, the communal aspect of it, the dynamic involving a large cast are all under exploited.

What you're left with is a movie that has very little worth.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have reasons to love the great users of a camera; fluid direction of action lends itself to fast-paced adventure and comedy narrative; but such a skill, in the hands of a King Vidor or an Anthony Mann can also be applied to idea-level work. This is Paul Wendkos' masterpiece. Its storyline can be retailed in a single pair of sentences. General Hector Cordoba is setting up as near-emperor in Northern Mexico, and steals a huge cannon from General Blackjack Pershing. he sends his crack mission unit, divided, apprehensive but determined, led by George Peppard, to get the cannon back and bring back Cordoba alive, to put an end to the rebellion. Charismatic Raf Vallone plays Cordoba; the ladies in the piece are Giovanna Ralli and Francine York; with the squad even further comprised of Nico Minardos, Peter Deuel, and Don Gordon. Other stalwarts in the class include John Larch and John Russell. Also horning in on an already fantastically-dangerous operation are Miss Ralli, and a stubborn Mexican Teniente (Gabriela Tinti) whose regiment was betrayed when Cordoba set up on his own. The danger is multiplied when Gordon's brother as advance spy is captured and tortured to death while he has to watch...and he decides he needs to kill Peppard. The attack that captures the cannon, when Peppard's orders are not obeyed by a regular army type, is one of the most electrifying visual and staging achievements in cinematic history; the penetration of Cordoba's stronghold, the revelations uncovered there, and the actions that win the mission team a chance at victory--or almost victory--are flawlessly presented. This is a beautiful color adventure film, with unusually strong costumes, acting, lighting, art direction sets and music by Elmer Bernstein. The script by Stephen Kandel is probably his best ever for a feature film. This is probably the most underrated major western at the moment, but I have always appreciated its heroes as result- getting hard-workers. But as Peppard reminds his group on the way home, "The trouble with being a "hero"--is the morning after". To find out why he says so, you will have to see "Cannon For Cordoba".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.

The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.

I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.

Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.

Which brings me to my second and main reason "I hate it". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.

The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a "normal" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you.
Write a positive movie review.

Eichard Gere & Diane Lane back again in another romantic love story. They are an excellent team,BUT somehow this film will not be among there best, 

The director George Wolfe using a screenplay by Ann Peacock & John Romanao, for Nicholas Sparks novel, does a capable job. This is yet another tale of 2 strangers meeting & falling in love,then they go on there way,then when they are about to meet again & start a life together.

SPOILER but not really. Tragedy happens, one of them dies.

How many times have we seen this already.

Those who never saw tearjerkers like this will hopefully like it more than I did. This story has about every cliché there is.

The only reason this has the ratings I will give it. is because of the fine acting & excellent production . The cast besides our 2 stars, includes Christopher Meloni, Viola Davis & Scott Glenn. they all give real good performances & do the very best with the material they were given

There is a good but not over done storm sequence, The sex scenes are well done, no nudity & next to no foul language,

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 out of 10)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: C'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument! 

This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!

Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.

This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.

With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame? 

A manifestly appalling production.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is engaging from start to finish with excellent performances, a great soundtrack with original music by Douglas Brown, and a well paced script that's full of surprises.

Full of new and not so new faces, this movie showcases promising talent especially in the case of Craig Morris who plays the main character Eddie Monroe. Morris, who also co-wrote the script, displays a quiet strength combined with a strong emotional performance as he creates a believable character on screen. Also a poignant delivery by Paul Vario who plays Uncle Benny with a genuine warmth, was so convincing that he made me hungry as he lovingly prepared his Italian sauce.

Great new faces, great new music, and a great new story - what more could you ask for. This film is highly recommended!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
My first hugely disappointing BBC/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Acting, of course! Think about it, Closet Land could easily have turned out so horribly - an entire movie filmed in one room with only two people, they better have some damned interesting things to chat about.

But it didn't turn out horribly. On the contrary, thanks to incredible portrayals by both Stowe and Rickman, Closet Land is a masterpiece in its own right.

That's not to say it is for everyone. Persons who have had their attention spans decreased through glitzy sex scenes and random gun fire may have trouble digesting Closet Land. However, those who can appreciate good story telling without explosions should give it a look (no matter how many video stores you have to call to find someone who has it in stock).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Cute idea to have Dionne Warwick do the song vocals for this movie-adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's bestselling book (a la "Valley Of The Dolls")...although it's really too bad this sudser doesn't have Patty Duke's Neely O'Hara to spike the story. "The Love Machine" is unrelievedly dull. Even the final brawl (with an Academy Award as a fight prop!) can't save it. Dyan Cannon seems embalmed in her heavy pancake make-up and cumbersome fall (although her tiny, suntanned figure is a beauty to behold), John Phillip Law is a block of wood in the lead, David Hemmings embarrassing in gay-mode as a flamboyant photographer. And where is Robin Stone walking to at the end? Is he trekking out to the waterfront to pick up some sailors? After Cannon has deflated his masculinity, it would be a safe bet. In that case, "Love Machine--The Final Episode" might've been a more interesting flick. Certainly better than this yawn-inducing snooze-opera. *1/2 from ****
As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place. Love that.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Meant to be some sort of a social commentary about the way that our lives were spinning out of control in the 1970's, this movie plays more like something Mr. Schlesinger threw together after having a bad day on the freeway. A mish mash of snippets about the nuts encountered along the freeway in Florida, and along the freeway of life, the cast is mostly wasted and probably ended up on the cutting room floor. The problem is that what DIDN'T end up on the cutting room floor probably should have! Now available on DVD, it's kinda fun to see a comedy that would have cost $100 million to produce had it been made in 2004. It rolls along and isn't too difficult to sit through, and, strangely enough, in 2004 we're all still pretty much just

hopping in our cars and going faster and faster, heading nowhere.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

i watched the longer version and could not take my eyes off the screen. 219 minutes passed and yet it seemed like only an hour had gone by. the characters were very believable and entertaining, and the photography was excellent. the story pulled me in and held my attention. i will definitely watch this again and again. this true story telling at it's best... not Hollywoods usual cheap thrills and skin deep glitz. i've seen a quite a lot of reviews on this movie. most seem to pan the film or give it faint praise. basically, it's a great film that received unfairly harsh reviews. watch it for yourself with an open mind. if you like westerns, historic period pieces, albeit historically inaccurate you'll enjoy the movie. Superb!!! 10/10
Determine the sentiment:

Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.

For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.

BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.

They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).

BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the "Suburban kids goes to the hood"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.

THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).

Especially in a movie where "the monster" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.

The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the "proffesional" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.

Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.

4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.
Write a positive movie review.

He plays straight but with a quiet intensity that makes him one of the top cops in movie history. Roy Scheider stars in a poor man's French Connection that has a little of the same gritty appeal. FC is a better movie, but I prefer watching this one because 1) I think Scheider is great and this is his best movie, and 2) this has the best car chase EVER, one that makes Bullitt look like a cable production (thanks again to Bill Hickman, who actually plays the driver). It doesn't hurt that Tony LoBianco stops by (again) to play a baddie. Please enjoy.
This anime recounts the tale of the Battle for Mamodo King. Every 1,000 years, 100 Mamado children are sent to Earth to fight to determine who will be their next king (in the original Japanese, the creatures are Mamono, which literally means magic/evil object). Each Mamado is paired with a Human partner, and given a magic spellbook. The Human can use this book to unleash incredible powers in the Mamodo, and when a Mamodo is defeated, their spellbook is engulfed in flames (alternately, a Mamdodo's book can be captured and burned directly). After that the Mamodo returns to the Mamodo world.

The titular character is Zatch (Gash in Japan), a 6-year old mamodo with electric powers. He is paired with Kiyomaru Takamini, and 14-year old genius. Zatch is initially reluctant to fight, but learning that some Mamodo are evil and deciding the battle for king is wrong, he decided to fight to become a 'kind king'.

Zatch Bell has drawn comparison to Pokemon, but a better comparison is to Digimon. Like Digimon, the Mamodo and Human have a one to one, symbiotic relationship. Also unlike Pokemon, both shows have an actual plot.

Zatch Bell features character growth and evolving relationships, and some fairly adult story lines (like love vs racism; slavery; mind control; etc.). It even has some decent plot twists and mysteries.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SPOILER WARNING

We've all heard the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" legend. But what if the wolf was a person in the modern world. Well it might be something like Big Fat Liar. Fourteen-year-old Jason Sheperd ( Frankie Muniz from "Malcolm in the Middle" ) is always lying to keep himself out of trouble. One day he is pressured to write an English essay, but it winds up in the hands of sleazy film-maker Marty Wolf ( Paul Giamatti ) who plans to turn Jason's story into a Hollywood blockbuster. No one believes Jason when he for once tells the truth and he ends up in summer school. However Jason is determined to prove to his parents the truth and travels to L.A. with his friend Kaylee ( Amanda Bynes ). When Wolf refuses to admit he ripped off his story, Jason plans to make Wolf's life a living hell. B.F.L. is no masterpiece but it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes of you're time. I wished they could've made it a bit longer though and there aren't that much pranks although they are clever enough ( I like the pool-dye the best ). I might not have liked this as much as I do if it weren't for Paul Giamatti. He is simply hilarious in this. If you have 90 minutes to kill try this out. You might just enjoy it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the "miracle" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from "Jesus of Nazareth", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try "Short Cut to Nirvana", a very highly rated film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Am glad that i am not the only one to find this series very good. This is the best series for young ladies! I have so strange taste on comedies and i find so hard one to please my intelligence, and i am so happy that their humor is exactly what i need. Love the gang of actors! If anyone knows a series or just a movie similar to this one, i say pretty please write back because i miss the series.

And kindly ask the writers and the producers to CONTINUE it, even if the actors are now all grown up, i guess!

Have a nice morning/day/evening/night! (because i do not know the exact time you will be reading this post)
Contains spoilers I had it recorded a while ago when it was on PBS but never got a chance to watch it (probably due to prejudice about having to sit through 5-6 hrs of Masterpiece Theater, with its BBC made for TV production style (no music, settings all in one room, no outdoor scenes flat TV look...)) But after watching the movie Traffic (which I thought was pretty good at that time,) I couldn't help digging up the Traffik tape to see what else could they have dwelled into with the extra 2 1/2 hr.

Boy, was my preconceptions wrong about this TV series. It is so much more involving than Traffic. The characters are fleshed out better so that their actions are more believable. And the whole subplot involving Pakistan completes the whole point of view of everyone in the whole supply chain, from the farmer to the end user. In Traffic, the Pakistan story was rewritten and reduced down to a good cop vs bad cop plot.

There was alot more meaningful discussion and debate about alcohol and other forms of drug, whereas in Traffic they mostly became passing references of no significance. Same with social issues, which in Traffik, were conveyed realistically w/o sounding preachy. Whereas in Traffic, the characters jus t blurted it out as a statement like the way they do it in those made for TV "issue of the week" movies.

There was no bad guy vs good guy in Traffik, even the dealer is portrayed as a junkie that sells to support his habit instead of the "nobody messes with me" type of person in Traffic.

The only down part is that since I watched Traffic not much before watching this, it was hard not to compare scene by scene, and even though the scenes were not the same, I knew what the outcome was going to be already. Thank god for the Pakistan story, which is different enough that it allowed me to enjoy it completely w/o thinking which scene it compares to. Although I was thrown off thinking the drugs were fused into the ceramic of the statues in which Helen brought back to Germany (as in the storyline of Traffic.) Thank god Traffik was not that hokey and far-fetched.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their "ideas over effects" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the "Twilight Zone", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie "second best" to Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey". What a fraud. "Journey to the far side of the sun", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as "Marooned", which "Journey" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matinée TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Julie Andrews plays a German spy who falls in love with an American pilot Rock Hudson, while on an assignment for Germany.

The songs are beautiful. The two are well-paired. Julie demonstrates a more temperamental side in this film than the nice girl she normally plays. 

A half-German, half-English girl who sings beautiful and entertains the troops in WW I, Julie sings some endearing Mancini songs. 

I loved the film. Some will say it's a "chick-flick," but so what. It's wonderful. 

Supporting characters are somewhat stereotyped. It may not be up to Rock's performance in Pillow Talk, Magnificent Obsession, or Giant.

Blake Edwards shot the film in Ireland and authentic WW I -type planes were used in the film. Scenery for England and France is absolutely gorgeous.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.

Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.

Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.

Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.

And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot. 

I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.

And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.

It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.

I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.

Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.

God help us all indeed.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The evil Professor Moriarty plots to gain control of both SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON which could win the war for the Nazis.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return to the screen as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved detective and sidekick, Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, in this entertaining little mystery. Universal Studios wasted no money on either fancy production values or a sensible script, knowing that its two stars would be all the attraction an audience would need. Indeed Rathbone, as the cerebral ego, and Bruce, as the bumbling id, seem to actually become the characters they are creating, gleefully keeping their faces straight while engaged in the most utter nonsense.

Dennis Hoey makes his first appearance as the dogged Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard; teamed with Bruce, these two good-hearted but pedantic fellows actually get to save the intellectually superior Holmes' life twice. Lionel Atwill, a master of the sinister who deserves more recognition for his talent, does a fine job as Moriarty, making the wicked rascal a foe worthy of Holmes' steel, relishing the scenes in which he gets to inflict torture & pain.

William Post Jr. and Kaaren Verne play the Swiss scientist and his girlfriend who are at the heart of the mystery, but they're not given much to do. Sweet Mary Gordon makes a token appearance as Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson.

Rathbone spices up his already classic interpretation of Holmes by getting to appear in disguise three times during the story, thereby revealing to the viewer that the great sleuth was a bit of a ham actor at heart.

This film--which is based very loosely on elements in Sir Arthur's short stories 'The Dancing Men' and 'The Empty House'--followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON (1943).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.

I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.

A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.

And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.

Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.

Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.

I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.

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

negative
More suspenseful, more subtle, much, much more disturbing....
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted.
Anna Christie (1930)

Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama. Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches.

Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era).

Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting, just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her enough that she made a German language version the following year.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Sadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a "stoner" sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful "Big Momma's House." Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud.