cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Okay, so it starts very unimaginatively with a narration from the lead character (Justine played by Laura Fraser - an amazing actress in her own right) but it goes on to become something miraculous. It has silly little things that you really shouldn't find funny but do every time. There is an especially memorable moment that sees your jaw dropping to the ground the first time you watch it when the male body of Jake, containing Justine's female mind, is trying to get used to her new anatomy. I wont spoil it for you, but the second time I watched it was with friends; seeing their faces was brilliant. It makes you cringe, but laugh at the same time. I am also a big fan of the music used. There is a beautiful small band that appears randomly on the street or on a pathway every now and then, but also some gorgeous, yet unknown (often the best), pop songs. It has the feeling of being written for an English cast by an American writer, which does annoy me only a couple of times. Overall, this film is hilarious. I am a massive fan of Laura Fraser's now, after being given his film for my birthday, and expect that, even though some of the cast are little-known to most, you too will enjoy every bit of it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I'm not a fan of scratching, but I really dug this movie. It gave me a real insight into a world I never had a clue existed; and what else is a documentary for? Funny, clever, hip - just like Pray's previous film, Hype! about the grunge music scene.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Cactus Flower is what I call a "pizza movie" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.

Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not "just" a receptionist.

Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.

Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: "That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class." Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws. 

The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).

For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident. 

In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza...
What's an example of a movie review?

Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military/police/sheriff/agent/marshal figure. The special effects are well, "special" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.

Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.

Spoilers...

A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash ("Pull up, pull up!"), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.

The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.
As a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too. 

I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate. 

It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.

I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Remember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? "The Fallen" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.

It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.

Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.

Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret it!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The storyline of this movie is cliché and obviously has been ripped off from Jurassic Park. The filmmakers didn't even try to hide that. It seems as though there was not enough budget to make decent dinosaur-dolls, so instead the viewer sees some robot-like toy-dinos (from a cheap toystore) which move in a very unnatural way. It's funny though, because it's so bad. The acting is almost as unnatural as the dinos are. No one seems really excited to be in this movie (which I totally understand). Especially the last half hour is extremely boring and it's almost impossible to watch it without falling asleep. The one positive comment note I'd like to make about "Raptor" is that it doesn't take a full 90 minutes.
I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word "dude" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.

It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.

So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.

Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.

- - SoundTrack
Is this a game FMV or a movie? In all honesty, I watched this one out of "choice-less-ness". It is a very big waste of time and money.

It seems HK movies are heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the world.

Try to put more effort and money into a production and make us want to watch, rather than something you want us to watch.

The graphics are so horrible than they looked like something out of the early to mid-90s low resolution games (in comparison to today's).

The way they made this movie is almost exactly what they did in the 90s' Wing Commander game, namely the third installment of the series. Stop regressing and make us Asian look so bad at this compared to the big guns in Hollywood.

Sure! They have big budgets and better actors. But we have some of the oldest histories, the myths and the legends, the best technophiles and possibly the largest computer graphic talent base in the world! So what went so very very wrong? Did you start using the same old companies that have been working with you for so many films?! Please stop wasting our time and money. This is the reason why HK movies are heading downhill so rapidly. Didn't you claim to be the Hollywood of the Orient? Guess not.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.

I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!! 

The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There's nothing new in this movie. Nothing you haven't thought about before, nothing you haven't heard before. The story of a gay man who is brutally murdered in a small town and the reaction of people can be broached in many ways, and this movie has chosen the most demagogic and slushy one. One of the biggest flaws in this movie is that it isn't neither a movie nor a documentary. The director has used the transcriptions of the original interviews and made the actors play them as if it was a movie. The result is weird. And finally, I read in previous comments that stated that people who don't like this movie are anti-gay. I'm pretty sure this comments come from people who consider themselves tolerant but don't tolerate that other people don't like this movie. This is a funny world.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling.
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.
Made the same year as the first Lumiere films, this is a much more dramatic short than the brothers attempted until the following year's 'Niagara'. The surviving print is very rough, but this only adds to the Turneresque visual violence, as huge surges of water dash against a stolid pier, and seem ready to engulf the camera, the viewer.

If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).

Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It took me a few years to hunt down this title, a major staple of my childhood. Almost every trip to the video shop I'd pick out Space Raiders and watch it three times every time my mother rented it for me. It was, I suppose, my Star Wars.

It's a shame then that it's such a stinker. My memories were so hazy that it offered nothing in terms of nostalgia so I had to take it at face value. A crew of space pirates accidentally kidnap a pretty annoying little kid and spend the rest of the movie trying to get him home.

Aimed squarely at the under-tens it's got unwelcome slapstick, very shoddy costumes and make-up, recycled special effects, wobbly sets and poor acting. But even with the unintentional comedy it's no fun to see it as an adult, where I can pick out not just the technical faults but wonder at how spectacularly the writer and director managed to botch an endless stream of no-brainer fun/powerful moments that have been seen in a million other sci-fi movies and in the hands of anyone remotely competent should have been successful.

I imagine as a kid I probably found it quite empowering - there are lots of "I can't do this, I'm just a kid" "Sure you can kiddo, you just have to try!"-type exchanges; the kid drinks beer, etc., but even by low budget 1983 sci-fi standards this one's pretty awful, with a real snoozer of a "finale".
What's an example of a movie review?

"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.

The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".

Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.

I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.

The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions. 

I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.
Write a negative movie review.

'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.

However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.

Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.

This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.
This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for "Gummo". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This film was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.

As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.

Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.

Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.

Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I did.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

i found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)
From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like "Funny Games". This time he adopted Elfriede Jelineks "Die Klavierspielerin", which is probably her best work so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society.

Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of them.

Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced.

People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love, affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal) than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to ease her inner pain.

Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear. 

Benoit Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs to Huppert.
So I caught this one afternoon as "What Lies Above" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.

Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His "bodyguard" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.

The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?

I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one...

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

negative
It's true, no one really expects anything from sequels. But even by that low standard this is a terrible film.

Essentially an anthology movie, this fourth installment in the Hellraiser saga tries to be an origins story and a wind-up to the entire series at the same time. An ambitious idea. But none of the cast is given enough screen time to do anything with their characters and rookie director Yagher abandoned the film rather than give in to studio meddling. The result is a steaming pile of mediocrity that even fanboys have trouble defending. Unless you're an "Alan Smithee" fan, avoid this one.

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

negative
This one was a surprise and better than most films I've seen recently. Highly enjoyable from start to finish, this is a film that will surely satisfy 99,9% of movie fans worldwide. Great acting from everyone, great script, great story and fantastic plot and twists. Try not to miss it!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When one considers that Carson McCullers is one of the foremost literary figures of the 20th century, it seems that it needs a very great lack of talent to be able to ruin one of her stories, but this movie shows it can be done! How do actors ingratiate their way to becoming directors? Wooden, unatmospheric, unsympathetic, totally out of sync with the poetic compassion of McCullers' writing, my jaw dropped with horror and disbelief that such a mish-mash of a movie could ever have found finance and backers. The only redeeming features are some moderately good acting, (although that said, Vanessa Redgrave seems to permanently render much the same performance whatever character she plays), and some good cinematography in places, but otherwise it is a bitter, bitter disappointment, and it could, and indeed should, have been a contemporary masterpiece. Simon Callow should hang his head in shame and stick to acting!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

My friends and I have watched this so many time I have lost count. This is worth seeing for those in the right frame of mind, meaning that this is not so much a good horror film as a film to lampoon for its funny quotes and bad effects. This film is best watched with other like minded individuals so you have someone to laugh with.

You'll laugh as Greg leaps and shuffles around the lab, petting his pet rabbit, while his hunchback shifts from right to left on his back. "Greg, stop clowning!", scolds Dr. Brandon. You'll laugh as J.G. Patterson gives hand signals to direct Greg to the other side of the operating table, while his hand is in the shot. And you'll probably chuckle when you realize that the final woman has none of the features he used to construct her with.
Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.

That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film. 

SPOILERS FOLLOW

My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.

While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.

On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.

This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.

Thurston Hunger 8/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Nothing but the director's juvenile fantasy come to life. This 'movie' is nothing more than an excuse for the director/actor to play kissy face with an attractive young woman who would otherwise never give him the time of day.

The plot is simple, the direction is nonexistent and the movie drags while the actor/director/writer/narrator narrates. Don't be fooled by the 'X' rating, there is no nudity and minimal gore.
In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This agreeable French movie deals about a millionaire owner of a tobacco factory on an African island nearly to Madagascar named Louis(Jean Paul Belmondo). He's a single man looking wife, then he advertises a bride and gets a gorgeous woman named Julia(Catherine Deneuve). When she spontaneously appears turns out to be much more attractive than expected. He marries to Julia but she suddenly disappears.A French eye private(Michael Bouquet) is hired by Julia's sister and soon he's on the trail of his previous spouse. Later Louis encounters her in a dancing-hall under another name. In spite of the romantic delusion and everything, Louis goes on enamored with his enigmatic wife.

This film is a splendid drama plenty of betrayal,deception, killing, theft and Hitchcockian suspense. Good performances by Jean Paul Belmondo as young proprietary of a cigarette company who seems determined to fall under the spell of a femme fatale and a wonderful Catherine Deneuve as suspect heroine. The film gets several references to the American cinema, but Truffaut(400 blows) was a fervent moviegoer, such as : Johnny Guitar, Colorado Jim, Bogart, and Hitchcock.The USA version was cut numerous minutes and deserves an urgent restoring and remastering. Loosely based on the novel titled'Waltz into darkness' by Cornell Woolrich (Rear window and screenwriter of Alfred Hitchcock hour) who also was adapted in 'Truffaut's The bride wore black'.Colorful cinematography by Denys Clerval(Stolen kisses) and atmospheric musical score by Antoine Duhamel, Truffaut's usual musician.This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with ¨Farenheit 451 and Shoot the piano player¨. Remade by an inferior version by Michael Christofer(2001) with Antonio Banderas, Angelina Jolie and Jack Thompson, full of erotic and lust scenes.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius, Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and 40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era and its giant star.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Watching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.

The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?

Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action. 

So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.

Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has. 

I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film.
I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w/ each other to turn men on, etc.

Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.

I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character/conflict development and the quality of the acting.

FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND.

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

positive