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

Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better.
What's an example of a movie review?

"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!

Watch at your own risk.
Write a negative movie review.

How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year.
When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

A CBS radio program entitled "We the People" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is "studying" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...

God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fiancé, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car ("Jalopy, an Italian car").

**** Three Faces West (7/3/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Mr. Brento wonders if this movie was produced by the same who produced the Dragonball Z TV series. Of course not.

This is a Hong Kong real action movie based on the first episodes of the Japanese original cartoon (which was also based on a comic book series). And I really don't know if it was produced under the license of the Dragonball creators...

However, the story of the monkey-boy with special powers is an ancient tale known all over Asia (in Japan, the name of the boy in the tale is Songoku; in China, it is Sunwukong; in Korea it is Sonogong; etc) and the story in Dragonball has much to do with that tale.

By the way, as I said, this movie is based on the first episodes of the Dragonball series (which was followed by Dragonball Z, although I think the US version had a different airing order). And all the scenes related to sexuality were also contained in the original cartoon series (without so much overacting and so much insistence on it!), but because of your comments I may suppose they were completely removed in the American dubbing.

Anyway, I agree with you about the overacting in the film and about how poor this adaptation of the original cartoon is. But maybe because of that nobody can forget it after watching it...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching "Welcome Home", I said to myself, "this director really knows what he's doing," not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie got better with time. I can't believe that it has been forty years since I saw this at the age of 15. Yes, that's right. Movie ratings were not yet a reality, so any teenager could walk into any movie. Imagine what it was like for a kid my age to see both Midnight Cowboy and Putney Swope in the same year. Imagine the times. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King has just been killed but the following summer had a man walking on the moon and Woodstock. Putney Swope was the Woodstock nation's chance to stick it to the man. You'll see where Robert Downey, Jr. got his sardonic brilliance. His old man was an instant hero to kids like me. No punches are pulled in this classic, and aging hippies will rejoice when they relive this era. Hopefully, new flower children will be emboldened by it, and this current era of fascism will come under the same scrutiny my era was subjected to.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" "Soultaker" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.

In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent!

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Compared to Battle of Britain, this is a real film, with real characters and a real plot. Battle of Britain is basically a documentary with the occasional Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, but the real protagonists are the Spits, the Hurricanes, etc. Here, on the other hand, you have two well-wrought characters (actually three) and a real plot. I strongly recommend it to anybody, even to those who are not particularly fond of war movies. It's well filmed, and I wonder what the director might do if he had the big capitals behind him. And I do not think that it's over-sentimental. It's only that in the fighters you have real people, with real feelings and a real life--as real as any fictional life in any great film.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A stunning and thoughtful observation on modern life for youngsters in Japan, Like Grains of Sand delves into issues such as rape, homosexuality and pubescent angst in a subtle and significant way. It gives an insight in to the youth culture struggling to define itself outside of the bounds of their parent's generation, with it's strict conformity and facade. Typical to Japanese cinema, often what isn't said is more important that what is, so to those not versed in Japanese film and culture, beware. It can seem dull and minimalistic (pretty much like every film to come out of Japan bar Mangas) if you don't know what to look for. I saw it for the first time when I was 15 and was what originally sparked my interest in Japan, it's culture and language. Considering I'm now 22 and learning Japanese with the intention of living there for 2 years, needless to say it's a powerful film. Enjoy!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Clossius says that "Baltic Storm" is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who "knows the truth". 

Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.

Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie. 

Once again, "Baltic Storm" is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie?
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Although Casper van Dien and Michael Rooker are generally relegated to B movies, even they are above this movie. It fails to convey even the slightest sense of excitement, fear, or dread -- unless you count the dread of sitting through the rest of this garbage. The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks. And what a killer he is: a cheap skull mask and a black hood. I liked him better when he was fighting He-Man. This is one of the laziest jobs of character design I've ever seen. I mean, it's Skeletor! And he's on a horse! This is supposed to be some scary, supernatural creature? How are we supposed to take this seriously? All we get is scenes of this dude riding around the woods on his horse -- which he can barely stay on -- interspersed with scenes of soldiers shooting randomly into the woods, thinking they can shoot a ghost. Occasionally, Skeletor will shoot someone with an arrow or ride by and stab someone, revealing how corny the effects really are. I generally enjoy Sci Fi channel fare on a basic cheese level, but this film is too inept for any level of enjoyment. Where's Dolph Lundgren when you need him???
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.

Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.

And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.

Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen.

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

positive
I have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:

This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.

It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.

And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.

It's just weird for the sake of being weird.

I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included. 

Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.

If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24/7, for eternity...

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.

On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As a Long Island independent film maker myself, and having have had two theatrical releases under my producing/directing belt I had always been told of how much I could learn by viewing a FRED CARPENTER production so I was lucky enough to have his "Eddie Monroe" as my initiation to his superb budgeting, production, casting, settings and masterful directing talents. My heart went out to it's characters, it's story and was totally won over by the trick/switch ending that brought the film's plot to fruition! Location's were marvelously chosen and human emotions in it's characters brought a realistic link to my bonding with all the elements that Mr Carpenter utilized throughout, to his and his film's benefit!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..

To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..

Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.

The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Italian rip off of Mandingo and The Drum is a badly dubbed Italian life on the plantation yarn. Lots of people who don't look like they belong in the American South wear badly tailored costumes and wander around locations that look nothing like the American south. The plot has something about the romance between a rich man and a certain young woman, the jealousy that ensues and the tragedy that follows. The film promises hot steamy sex and lots of twisted violence but nothing ever really comes of any of it, its all tease. Its all probably racially insensitive, I couldn't notice since its artistically bankrupt. The final twist is at best laughable. A major turkey.

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

negative
I thought it will be a Ok movie after seeing the commercials about it. It was funny at some parts and some very nasty. The only person I felt sorry for is Horatio Sans who got a hot wife who is cheating on him with other women. But he never got a chance to have a threesome with until the and that was good but they should have made more bigger thru out the film.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

It's out of question that the real Anna Anderson was NOT Princess Anastasia. Apart from very distinctive differences in physical appearance(Anderson's eyes are perceivably larger, lips thicker, nose larger and turned up at the end....etc), Anderson's unable to speak Russian was a ridiculous tell......That's why I detest Anna Anderson and her confederates so much. Not a lot of swindlers have the audacity and endurance to scam for 60+ years with such a blatantly untenable scheme.

Yet to some extent I have sympathy for Anna Anderson. Life must have been hard for a young Polish peasant worker in those days. And to impersonate another woman for 60+ years is an arduous task for anybody.She had to hold back her fleshy lips all the time to mimic the thin lips of Anastasia's, and had to occasionally go lunatic to make people believe all her chaotic memory was just a result of mental problem.

Anna Anderson was an awesome woman on a wrong track. Had she put her good-looks, learned elegance, endurance, acting skills into proper use, she could of made a first-class actress.

On a side note: Some main characters of this two-parter seem to be loosely based on real figures. Prince Erich could be a mixture of Gleb Botkin(believed by many the most possible brain behind the whole scheme), Duke George and Dmitri of Leuchtenberg, and several other figures. And Darya Romanoff seem to be based on the gorgeous Princess Xenia Georgievna Romanova. But unlike the real confederates, Prince Erich was motiveless in this show and supported Anna out of love for and sincere belief in her, which is touching.

On the whole this is a great show. Fictionalised a bit but still remains faithful to the reality. The power of Amy Irving's acting lies in that she successfully represented Anderson's self-assuredness, the mixture of impersonating others and being herself is intriguing. Just as Princess Xenia said about Anderson:"She was herself at all times and never gave the slightest impression of acting a part." Highly recommended.
This movie could be a bit boring for some people, but I find this film

very interesting in terms of an attempt to reveal a tradition.

The director, Lim, has made two films about traditional music in Korea before this film. The film before this one was showing the music throughout the film, and this film is trying to achieve similar things by having backgrounds in the movie just like a painting.

Another thing is that, the story is written by both director and a philosopher, Kim who is well known scholar in Korea (holding a lot of degrees - including doctor at Havard) I'm not saying that educated people make better films but that philosopher is an expert in traditional culture in Korea, so it gives more credit on this film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.

Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.

NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.

There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.

So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of "extras" delivering a film that turned out to be "okey dokey".

Kermit's melancholy ukulele number "Rainbow Connection" was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's "It Goes Like It Goes". I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.

It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.

I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.

Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.

The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).

The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.

The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I thought Besson's film managed to do without words what few films have been able to do with them; Capture true human emotions. The main character's struggles, triumphs, set backs, hopes and desires are all so honestly shown that you wonder if he is acting at all. The film has a low budget and is obviously made without the glitz and glamour afforded to most Hollywood productions but that minimalism is what allows this film to transcend the stereotypical Sci-Fi labeling and become a true drama. However calling this film solely a drama would take away from the fantastic post-apocalyptic plot. True this type of movie has been done been before but I think this one captures the joys and sorrows of that type of world possibly better than any other one does.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.

Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.

The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.

Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...

On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.

Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.

It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.

In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.

Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.

This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.

I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage.
Set during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, this story has all the suspense of a good cold war book or movie as a multinational group of foreigners attempt to smuggle Jason Robards out of Hungary into Austria. However, three things complement the story, making this an extremely good movie.

First, the actors use the actual languages of their roles. The Russian soldiers speak only Russian; the Hungarians only Hungarian; the Germans only German, except to the minimal extent to tell the story. Since Debra Kerr is English, she speaks only English, and, of course, Yul Brynner and a few others essential to the story also speak heavily accented English. As a result, the empathy of the audience to the travelers becomes paramount. The viewer shares all the confusion and suspense of being involved in an illicit border crossing when he/she cannot understand any of the languages spoken around them. Very powerful feelings are aroused in the audience, and notwithstanding the heavy use of foreign languages, the audience is never at a loss for following the film. No subtitles are necessary.

Second. I was in Hungary in 1995, and I'm telling you, this movie has it right on. From the gypsy music overpowering the dinner meal to the underground caverns in the buildings where much of the action takes place to the village scenes, the realism is incredible. If I didn't eat in the actual restaurant in the movie, I ate at its double. I thought that I actually walked down the main street in that village. (Actually, the film was shot in Austria).

Third, and most important, this movie reunites Deberah Kerr and Yul Brynner (after The King and I) and the magnetism between them as the story unfolds is nothing short of Oscar qualified. Of course, Yul already received an Oscar for playing that relationship, so the Acadamy wasn't going to give him another one, but that is the quality of the film. Don't miss this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a wonderful film taking place during the romantic period of the Civil War. This film is a must see for Eastwood Fans and Eastwood claims this is one of his most favorite films that he did. I couldn't agree more. Watch out! This is a spoiler- Eastwood does die in the end. Eastwood and director Don Siegel rightfully argued that the ending should be unexpected and should be unhappy for a few reasons. They wanted to stick to the book, for one. Secondly, there can't always be a happy ending. Thirdly, this was written during the Vietnam War- they wanted a negative statement to this terrible struggle of war where people were needlessly dying. I agree with all of this. It is a wonderfully shot film and I love most films involving the Civil War. It is more of a portrait of how deceptive women can be- that they can be more dangerous than men, hence the title has much to do with the statement of the film BEGUILED- to be deceived. The song sung by Eastwood at the beginning and the end of the film is another statement against not just the Civil War but the Vietnam War and maybe indirectly the women he comes across during the film. Wonderful story of love and deception and many memorable scenes- NOTE: This film is rated R for no reason. There is hardly any language, it is probably some of the subject matter involving sex- but there is no nudity really. Excellent film- 9/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know that "The Human Tornado" was several times better than this. I think that those who can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again.
There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I actually liked certain things about this game. I loved the first person perspective and wish we had had that choice in the first three games. There's nothing like seeing the monsters up close, in your face. The graphics really weren't bad, but I would have liked more things to interact with even though it was just a shooter. The music was fine. The things I hated were: The movement kind of sucked and aiming was a total pain. The story was too lame for words and too much of the same old thing with no originality. The inability to save was awful!!! Some of us do have a life and would like to save to finish the game later. I thought the weapons kind of sucked, too. This game is fun for awhile, but it's nothing like the first three and only good if you just want to shoot stuff. I'd recommend it for the novelty of playing in the first person, but that's about it. Play it at your own risk.
Cowardly and cynical, `The Hospital' represents the nadir of Paddy Chayefsky's special brand of celebration of the status quo disguised as satire.

Thanks to ham-handed director Arthur Hiller, this ludicrous script gets the visually ugly, poorly paced presentation it deserves.

Only a great performance by George C. Scott, in the sort of mean-spirited role he was born to play, keeps `The Hospital' from being a complete disaster.

Ironically, though, Scott's performance does viewers a disservice. His magnetism keeps them watching when they might more profitably turn off the VCR and clean out the closets, stare at the clouds, or watch re-runs of `Baywatch.'

Certainly, anyone who emotionally invests in the set-up _ modern medicine apparently gone amok _ will feel cheated by the dismal payoff, where Chayefsky reveals that The System Works Just Fine, So Quit Your Carping.

While the first half of this film provides some entertaining black comedy, it all turns out to be a red herring. Before that becomes clear, though, Chayefsky gives some good lines to Scott as his middle-aged, middle-class, white male stand-in.

Bitter, alcoholic, impotent, Scott's Dr. Herbert Bock has alienated those who know him best, and he has the bile to keep alienating them. In Chayefsky's worldview, all that of course makes Bock a magnet for a hippie chick half his age.

Playing a collection of adjectives, the long-haired, long-legged, braless and almost bust-less Diana Rigg struggles in the part of `the girl.' The British Rigg is miscast as a southwestern free spirit, but any other actress would struggle as well. Like the rest of a good cast gone to waste, Rigg can't overcome a script that isn't interested in any character except Bock, or any philosophy beyond banality.

For fans of George C. Scott, this is another star turn and worth watching. For fans of black comedy, turn it off after the first 45 minutes. For anyone else, don't bother.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Affable aspiring cartoonist Hoops McCann (a wonderfully engaging performance by John Cusack) and his best buddy George (the deliciously deadpan Joel Murray) go to Nantucket for the summer following graduation from high school. Hoops, George, and several newfound pals come to the aid of Cassandra (Demi Moore at her most charming), a singer who's family house is being threatened with demolition by the greedy Beckersted clan. Writer/director Savage Steve Holland offers an often hilariously wacky and zesty nonstop barrage of admittedly broad and dumb, but still very funny jokes. The constant madcap lunacy has a real giddy, good-natured and infectiously inane vitality to it that's impossible to either dislike or resist. Moreover, the lively and enthusiastic acting from a fine game cast adds immensely to the zany merriment: Bobcat Goldthwait as the spastic Egg Stork, Tom Villard as his goofy brother Clay, Curtis Armstrong as the sweet Ack Ack Raymond, Mark Metcalf as evil rich jerk Aquilla Beckersted, Matt Mulhern as the mean Teddy, Kimberly Foster as the fetching Cookie, Joe Flaherty as the gung-ho General Raymond, William Hickey as cranky Old Man Beckersted, Jeremy Piven as smug preppy bully Ty, and John Matuszak as hulking biker Stan. Isidore Mankofsky's slick cinematography, the hip thrashy soundtrack, Cory Lerios' cool rockin' score, and the funky animation are all uniformly excellent. Single funniest scene: Egg in a Godzilla suit terrorizing a posh dinner party. An absolute hoot.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****

Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented "Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.
What's an example of a movie review?

league of gentleman has been the most disturbing British sitcom to be on t.v and how can a funny movie be so bad rated,they just have no taste this film will make you want to watch over and over again and still find it funny.

it is surprising that it has done bad but it is British the cinema do crap most of the time but this time it (in my words) a boost with comedy with a giraffe spunks over Lady's, this is a top British comedy and better than dodge-ball, so by this and it won't prove you wrong as i don't really laugh through films but this film was amazing through comedy with the best characters but i was a bit disappointed of how much Edward and Tabb's were in there for back to typing buy this film and it won't disappoint you.