cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny  it said comedy" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny  and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.

Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the mechanics", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.

The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships  if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.

The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.

The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or "Micky" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.

The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, "you must be the short depressed kid we ordered." Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, "you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in." But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.

The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but "it just doesn't matter". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I went to see THE ITALIAN JOB with mixed reviews in my head. I was pleasantly surprised with an entertaining close to 2 hours. I thought the cast was just great and so were the special effects, with the safe and truck just dropping out of sight. If you like fast paced action movies, this is the one to see.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I love this movie despite the fact it just misses being great. It's an adult entertainment, full of issues that a grown person can relate to. The acting is superb. It's fun watching John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands as a feuding middle-aged couple. Who knows how much of it came from their own marriage? Susan Sarandon has never been sexier or more appealing than as her freewheeling character, Aretha. Raul Julia is a hoot as a lusty goatherd. The scenery in Greece is spectacular; the New York settings cause me to squirm due to many shots of the World Trade Center. Fantastic score by Stomu Yamashta. With so many things going for it, why isn't this a great film? It's a bit rambling and overly long, unfocused, and uncomfortably imbalanced between humor and drama. Still, it's engaging, entertaining, and deeply thoughtful.
Determine the sentiment:

I went straight to the big screen to view this kicker. This is the only flick that I know of that Tarsem Singh has directed but boy was it intense. This movie was a total mind stimulant and one of the best special effects flick of this kind.

The characters were vibrant and and nothing short of beings created in your own mind or nightmare. This movie is scary and interesting and totally bombs the senses with fear and exhilaration. This movie compares to no other I have seen except for the level of being beautifully odd. In that respect it is a fairly large step above `A Clockwork Orange.' Definitely see this movie on the big screen and don't wait for it to come out on tape. It won't be half as good on tape.

This movie is not for the easily freaked out. It will mess with your mind and leave you with images that take a while to forget. But for those who like to be freaked out.....ENJOY!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.

And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.
This adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in! 

WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with "humor" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.

You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.

Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.

1/10!!!!!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: ...a good script or director couldn't fix.

The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.

The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.

The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.

To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.

I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was sorely disappointed in this movie. Twice I was temped to walk out because segments of the movie were so demoralizing and depressing. The movie has elements that allude to all the seamy things in life (pornography, murder, suicide, fornication, hatred, gang warfare). The graphic nature of the violence in this movie was particularly disturbing.

And Richard Dutcher does a great disservice to the LDS Church in portraying missionary attitudes, commitment, spirituality, and obedience as unfocused and lackadaisical.

My biggest objection to this movie, however, was that it is the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.

Dutcher's God's Army One was okay. His Brigham City was quite good. This movie, in terms of casting, acting, and drama was his best. But in terms of being inspiring or uplifting it was as awful as it could be. In fact, this movie so demoralized me that I am sorry I went. I have lost interest in ever again supporting Dutcher in an LDS-themed movie with a ticket purchase.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The family happiness is crumbling when, the from the beginning rich father Ward (Michael Ontkean), gets poor and cannot support the family any longer. Then the mother Faye (Jaclyn Smith) has to take the role as the breadwinner in the family and starts to work in order to support the family and at the same time, periodically alone, has to manage the family life. Not always that good, but as good as she can. The family life hardly gets easier when the father learns that the son Lionel (Joe Flanigan "Stargate Atlantis") is gay and is living together with his lover John (Joel Gretsch "The 4400") also an old family friend, resulting in that the father makes clear to Lionel that he is no longer welcome in the family. Lionel is the one who meant the most to his sister Anne (Leslie Horan) during her up-bringing, since the family neglected her. Anne cannot stand the fact that their father have cut the cords with Lionel and therefore she run away from home. As this wasn't enough, the son Greg (Brian Krause "Charmed") enlists in the marines and is sent to war. The storyline in this film can on some occasions feel a bit thin, in spite of that it still has a lot of realism in it, which makes it well worth seeing. Since this film illustrates many sensitive relations and situations, I would believe that it is best appreciated by a mature audience even though it wouldn't hurt for teenagers to see it and get something to think about before adulthood.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent.

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

positive
My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Five years after the US Civil War, western folk are more concerned with the age old war between homesteaders and cattle ranchers. The cattlemen herd their wares, from Texas to the trail town of Abilene, Kansas. There, the cowboys find not only big money, but also big confrontation, with homesteaders. Tall in the saddle Marshal Randolph Scott (as Dan Mitchell) tries to keep peace in the town. Mr. Scott has experience mediating between trail hands and saloon patrons. He also juggles the town's finest looking women: sexy saloon singer Ann Dvorak (as Rita) and pretty church lady Rhonda Fleming (as Sherry). Boozy county Sheriff Edgar Buchanan (as Bravo Trimble) offers more comic relief than sharp-shooting assistance.

"Abilene Town" begins with some promising symbolism and contrast: gunshots interrupt Scott and Ms. Fleming singing a hymn in Church; then, the camera switches to Ms. Dvorak sexily singing her saloon number, which causes a man to fire his gun in pleasure. After that, it really becomes quite a standard western; it is somehow duller than it should be, but not quite awful. Young Lloyd Bridges appears as one of the homesteaders. Dvorak's leggy costume is the film's greatest asset; in it, she is a real mover. 

**** Abilene Town (1/11/46) Edwin L. Marin ~ Randolph Scott, Ann Dvorak, Edgar Buchanan
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.

The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.

Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.
Write a negative movie review.

I just have watched Icon on DVD and despite being a great book, the movie is a weak substrate from it. Those responsible for the writing should be banished to Siberia. Why they maul the great story with all kind of C-film subploys which are totally irrelevant to the story is totally beyond me.

Yet the filmmakers and cast do there best to make something out of it, but at the end the film was not satisfying at all.

Can someone please make a decent movie out of this to show how it is done. I'm sure that the crowds will rally for such a masterpiece novel turned into a book, not into a cheap C-movie.
I can't believe the amount of reviewers who praise this as realistic. I'm a million miles from being an expert, and I'm never going to climb a mountain; but even the very basic knowledge attained from reading Into Thin Air, and watching Everest Beyond The Limit and a few other Everest docs meant that this film just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. There is some good climbing footage at the start; and when the billionaire mission leader asks early in the film "How much experience above 8000 metres do you have?", I was encouraged to hope that this might be a gritty and accurate man-vs-nature odyssey. Instead you have a bunch of climbers zooming up a mountain with no acclimatisation; climbing with goggles off in full sun, and they are barely ever out of breath performing miraculous feats of endurance. Only near the summit is a little fatigue suggested, to dramatically accentuate the physical feat of climbing such a monstrous peak, almost as an afterthought. If you have no knowledge of mountaineering, give it a look: be prepared for some clichéd heroics (although no more clichéd than a hundred other passably diverting flicks), and a clichéd outcome. I've been developing a minor fascination with high mountains and was looking forward to watching K2; but other than some amazingly beautiful scenery, it was a let down because it was so far removed from reality. I can imagine some experts being employed in the making of this movie, but then being conveniently ignored in the pursuit of the heroic, and sadly fantastical storyline. Also, you would sound like a bit of a tit if you said "welcome to the death zone" at 200000 feet.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.

Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.

And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.

The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.

The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.

What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!

But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the "hilarious" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such "great" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory "gay" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other "bright" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into their movies.

10/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

In 'Hoot' Logan Lerman plays Roy Eberhardt, the new kid in school who has just moved from Montana. But Florida is a lot different from Montana. Despite is troubles in blending in, Roy discovers a bigger problem. A new franchise restaurant is coming to town and families of burrowing owls are in trouble. Can the new kid, a tomboy (Brie Larson) and a runaway (Cody Linley) stop big business from destroying these owls' home? 

This movie was pretty good. The kids (Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Cody Linley) are the real stars of this film. Luke Wilson (Officer Delinko) is okay, but really does not have a very big part. Neither does Robert Wagner (Mayor) or Jimmy Buffett (Mr. Ryan).

Nevertheless this was a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. For a first time producer, I thought Jimmy Buffett put together a quality piece of work. Plus the owls were really cute.
I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.

Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.

It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor  but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus  the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!
Begotten is certainly an experience, and a out of the ordinary experience at that. The use of colour is fascinating and at times, frustrating. A LOT of what happens on screen is incredibly difficult to make out. Your view is either obscured by a sudden bizarre change in colour and tone, characters in the way and random cuts to the sky. The sound is very haunting and a welcome addition. It really aids the nihilistic and hopeless tone that smothers this film. 

As for what Begotten is about, the "rape of the environment and rebirth" theory feels pretty accurate to me. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time focusing on the meaning, it's virtually unimportant. It's clear the director didn't want to explain anything. He simply presents it as it is, and if you want to search for a meaning that's up to you. 

Watching Begotten is definitely not a walk in the park, but I was captivated from the opening. It really is like watching a person's worst nightmare. What we see is at times distressing and very unpleasant, but there is a surreal dreamlike beauty in there. If you're an art-house/experimental fan and you haven't yet seen Begotten, make it a priority. I doubt you will ever forget it. I sure know that I won't.

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

positive
I finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of "Rich and Famous" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called "On Location with Rich and Famous" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying "Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.

It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). "How so?" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about "stupid"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.

I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

SPOILERS AHEAD For the first ten minutes or so of Star Witness we're introduced to a quote typical urban American family unquote in a nameless city, which is another way of saying Warner Brothers' version of NYC. Except for the young children, including the charming Dickie Moore, and sprightly Sally Blane, they're a pretty dreary lot, and their dinner table conversation is tedious and we wish the story would move along and bring in the star, Walter Huston. But wait, folks, wait. All of a sudden serious gangster movie action breaks out, drawing the family in against their will, and after that this baby never lets up. There's suspense, an Oscar-nominated script, good acting; everything you want old movies to beit is here. I do question Chic Sales performance; he must be an acquired taste, but his presence turns out to be crucial to the plot. He's treated to special status in the credits, so Warner Bros. must have really been high on Sale, but how his corny old man routine fit in with the public then is something lost to me. Perhaps it is lost to time period, an unknowable factor you had to be a 1931 moviegoer to understand. Also, the climax is typically melodramatic. Nevertheless, this right now is the best release of the studio that year I have seen so far (however, I've only seen eight, so perhaps that's an inconclusive view). Do not miss this when TCM shows it. 8 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Jordan takes us into the seedy crime side of Sydney, Australia, following the desperate attempt of nineteen year old Jimmy, (Heath Ledger), who bundles a job for a local gangster and needs to make amend before they get to him. The gangsters, (led by Bryan Brown), are a menacing bunch with a humorous streak in them. That's what makes the film work, because we always view gangsters as a rough bunch out to screw you badly. But this mob tickle your funny bone as well. A clever structured script by Jordan has characters crossing paths and getting caught in the web plot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
...But it definitely still only deserves 4/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie.

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

negative
The best independent film of 2001 - I went to see The Wind at the recommendation of friends who caught it at Dances with Films Festival in LA last summer - it's a great, scary, well made film. The score was amazing. Can't wait to see his next movie!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.

I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *

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

negative
This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples. 

It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.

The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.

I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.

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

negative
First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as "Psycho" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel "Kilerow 2-och" ("2 Kilers") is on the way and it's just the same story.
What's an example of a movie review?

If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-screen version. It is stunning.
This Columbo episode is one of the better and perhaps one of my personal favorites. The cast includes Rosemary's Baby John Cassavetes as the maestro, his wife played by Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mom) and his mother-in-law played by Myrna Loy (one of America's greatest leading actresses in film of our time). Anyway I disagree with anybody who criticizes against this film. This episode is one of my favorites because you have an excellent cast who do a superb job in performing. I love watching Columbo with his beloved dog who he never names in the series. This time, the episode focuses in on classical music at the Hollywood Bowl, one of L.A.'s attractions. Of course, Columbo becomes as interested in classical music as he does anything else involving a crime.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.

To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Check out the first 20 minutes even though the suspense hasn't yet kicked in. We get a pretty good look at super-secret Los Alamos just a few years after the big bomb test that helped end WWII. Except for the tight security, it looks unthreatening enough. Note how it's a TV repairman, an obvious regular guy, who takes us through security. Once through, it's like any-town-USA, nice homes, quiet streets, kids going to school, and a family TV on the blink. Later on we see little Tommy and little Peggy frolicking along streets lined with impressive looking facilities separated by locked gates. The movie appears to be saying, "Okay, we're tough, only because we have to be. But, basically, we're still just folks."

Now, I expect that was a comforting message to Cold War audiences still not used to government's "dooms-day" research. It's a clear effort at popular reassurance. The one darker note is when Tommy's mother (Clarke) worries about her son's mental state. He doesn't say, "When I grow up"; instead, it's, "If I grow up". That note of doubt not only reflects a Los Alamos reality, but also a national one that in 1952 had just seen footage of the apocalyptic H-bomb. Note too, how professionally FBI agents are portrayed, a standard feature of McCarthy era fare. When brute force is needed, it's not they, but private citizen Gene Barry who thrashes out the informationan early version, I suppose, of modern era "rendition".

Once the kidnapping occurs, the suspense doesn't let up. The intrigue is nicely handled with colorful LA locations that keep us guessing. The climactic scenes around the cliff dwellings may not be plausible as a hiding place, but the view of northern New Mexico is great. Then too, the ancient stone apartments amount to one of the more exotic backdrops of the decade. Note also the extensive use of the police helicopter just coming into use as a law enforcement tool. Among an otherwise subdued cast, Nancy Gates remains a sparkling presence as teacher Ellen Haskell. Never Hollywood glamorous, she was still a fine unsung actress and winning personality. I also expect this was one of director Hopper's more successful movie efforts, and though people have since gotten used to the nuclear threat, the movie remains a revealing and riveting document of its time.

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

positive