cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: "They will never look for it here" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!

Grz Da Jean Holland

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I was fortunate enough to see The Last Stop here where I live at the Moving Pictures Film Festival (for those of you that don't know, the Moving Pictures Film Festival is a tour of Canadian made film in Canada). I was told just before the movie started that it was the world premiere and that it was on the verge of getting an American distribution deal which added to my excitement.

I'm a big horror movie fan, and yes, I love the Scream trilogy as well. So when I found out that Rose McGowan was doing a Ten Little Indians type of movie I knew that I was in for a treat. Rose McGowan was the biggest name actor/actress at the entire festival.

The best way I can describe it without giving away too much of the plot is that it's not quite like Scream. And it certainly is worth seeing. It's set in the middle of a snowstorm (it was filmed in Vancouver, B.C., Canada) at a mountaintop motel, which adds to the suspense. Rose McGowan puts in a great performance as the-girl-next-door(?!) along with the rest of the cast. And as for what happens at the end, well, the only thing I'll say is that you'll never guess the ending.

Sadly, it probably won't make it into mainstream North American theatres because the only decent money maker in it is Rose McGowan. But if you get the chance to see it I would recommend you do. And if worse comes to worst, there's always video.

I gave it a 9 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Art imitates life imitates art. Atticus Finch is reincarnated into the D.A. in this tragic and suspenseful gripping documentary that plays more like a who-done-it and how did it happen. The authenticity and sometimes reluctant honesty of the individuals make this a compelling story in many layers. Although racism is one of the themes there are other elements such as work ethic, integrity, and coping with grief that have drawn me back to view and review this film again and again. The music is driving but not obtrusive; the pacing and visuals are such that there is no mistaking the fact that these are real people going through an authentic experience.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.

That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.

I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.

Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.

I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.

They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.

So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.

I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But "Lance"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.

The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Too bad somebody did not have the smarts to release this movie to theaters. I had never heard of it when it appeared on cable. After the first shock of realizing this is not like any other movie you have seen since Bringing Up Baby you have to let it sweep you along and run with it. Not until it's over do you realize it covers issues that are not only subtle but significant. Alienation, denial, wish-fulfillment, for a start. Cathy Bates owns this movie, she's never been better. The whole cast has the feel of the plot and knows what they're doing without laying on gratuitous hamming, except where it's called for, as with Julie Andrews' bits or Jonathan Pryce's camp videos. If you're not open-minded you won't get it. (See Mark Adnum's bizarre review, which he devotes to adulation of Stephanie Beacham, her career and her brother's OBE for introducing vegetable oil or something to island natives.) Taking that as a cue, I might as well spend time eulogizing Amo Gulinello's stellar cameo as a TV station intern or Jack Noseworthy's shower scene. So, cast aside all previous concepts of film comedy and have a good time. I loved it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Before I saw this film I didn't really expect to much from it, although my friend advised otherwise. Due to this request from my friend I decided I was really going to watch this film. The minute I sat down to view the film I was absolutely blown away. From the credits I was falling of my seat; I just couldn't contain myself. The film is about Hitler in all the glory of comedy. Hynkel is the absolute double for the Jewish Barber, who comes back from fighting in the war. Due to the heroics of the barber, he manages to save one of the germans and by doing that gets a member of the enemy on board, which helps in the struggle which the jews had. But things went wrong and Stolz was arrested, but only then to escape to the confines of the Jewish surburb, 'The Ghetto'. Due to this escape, the german army began searching which meant that the Barber and Stolz got arrested but again they escaped, only to be mistaken for hynkel and consequently takes his poistion. *****THE SPEECH THAT CHAPLIN MAKES AT THE END IS FANTASTIC, IT COMPLIES THE MORALS WHICH SOCIETY COULD ONLY DREAM ABOUT. IN THE SPEECH IT CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE MEANING OF THE FILM BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUNESS AND SINCERENITY WHICH IT ENTAILED, AND IT DEFINATELY WORKS, BECAUSE I DID WALK OUT FEELING GUILTY ABOUT HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES, LOOKING AT THE SMALLEST THING SUCH AS BEING IGNORANT TO SOMEONE TO THE BIGGEST, MOST PROMINENT THINGS SUCH AS WAR.
What's an example of a movie review?

This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes.
This film, without doubt, is the clearest example of the British humour the Germans can't understand. One-liners run rampant in a film spawning one of the greatest series of films in British cinema history (St.Trinians). The story of bureaucratic incompetence amid post-war trials enables Frank Launder to direct maximum talent from all the cast. It's probably the only film in which Margaret Rutherford meets her match, in Alastair Sim, for forceful characterisation (she still wins though). Joyce Grenfell (bless her) and Richard Wattis both deserve mentions in Dighton's masterpiece of English etiquette and stiff upper lip under pressure.

No Rutherford/Sim/Grenfell fan would be without this in their collection. Absolutely brilliant. Why 9/10? Only 83mins long.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).

Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.

Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Synopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a "college" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money. 

Wow. A Paean to ignorance. 

If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:

1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.

2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with. 

3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion. 

4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules. 

5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation. 

6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a "charter school" with "nontraditional teaching techniques," it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.) 

This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life. 

This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***. 

(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)
I love this movie, one of my all time favorites. Ann Blythe as Sally O'Moyne is sweet and trouble-free. She believes that praying to Saint Anne will solve all her and her friends troubles. The sub-plot of the dastardly bad man to get her father's property is funny and clever. Her brothers are what kind of brothers any girl would love to have. Also, look for "Aunt Bee" as her mother, a strong Irish woman who won't leave her house that she brought her family up in. They don't make them like this anymore, that's for sure.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I find it hard to believe this could happen at all. We do not know if Justin and Richard were troubled or had committed crimes in the past. The movie seems to imply that they were not in and out of trouble. So the first crime they commit is murder? Just to play and jostle with the cops? How do they pick up any girl and just say you are it? Also Richard seems to strangle the woman with little or no effort nor does the women seem to struggle. Hmmm. This whole concept is really hard to believe. That said let's move on. I found myself really hating these punks and would love to have been present with my shot gun with police tactical ammo and see what their plastic suits do then. As for Cassie who was a victim of Carl Hudson has a horrible time trying to survive. The memory of having been stabbed 17 times by Carl leaves her in an emotional mess. Sandra does a superb acting job. She sure made me believe she was one angry cop. As for solving the crime, I thought it was great. This movie kept me planted in my chair. Loved the acting of all but Sam. He had no get-up and go. The one thing this movie did not need was the love scene or should I say the rape scene.
I like the earlier description of this movie as a life poem. I caught this totally at random on the Movie Channel last night, and was captivated enough to stick with it the whole way. There's really just a toally unique voice to the film, a poetry of narration that's meaningful without straying into pretension. There's also many hilarious moments from Wirey's middle-school days that are crude without being potty humor. It's sad that this movie is so low-rated. The fact that there are so many 1's makes me think the numbers are cooked- I can't see how anyone could see the movie as that abysmal. Sure, this is by no means a typical romantic comedy, but it is a very unique viewpoint of a very unique life, of a man whose very appeal comes from his detachment, a detachment he must overcome before it destroys him. Give this flick a chance. It came out of nowhere for me, and I feel the richer for it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I kind of like Bam Margera, so I was curious. 

But watching a home production with somebody elses friends and family, with a decent camera and a sound guy, just isn't good film-making. 

Writing, direction, acting and editing is abysmal at best. But I sat through half of it. And why?

This film gives perfect examples of what not to do, it is a film student's dream of what to avoid at every stage of the process. Cram it into film school curiculums all over the joint!

So thanx Bam! Now I know Jackass is for real - cause you ain't looking to win an Oscar, dude:)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I knew next to nothing about this movie until I chanced to rent it. It was a very pleasant surprise. The cast is excellent including Matthau whom I do not normally care for. He makes a credible romantic lead. Hawn is a sweet kook and Bergman is touching as a woman coming out of her shell.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I will admit I possibly missed tiny moments when I wasn't paying proper attention, but I got enough of the story to agree that it is a great family film, from director Lionel Jefferies, who played Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Basically it starts with a happy upper-middle class family living in Victorian London. One night the Father (Iain Cuthbertson) is visited by two strangers, and he leaves with them, and does not return. They move to a cottage in the country, and here the children; Bobbie (Jenny Agutter, who I first saw in Child's Play 2), Phyllis (Sally Thomsett) and Peter (Gary Warren) keep their spirits up, with their fascination for the nearby railroad. Everyday they wave faithfully to the passengers in the passing trains, and with courage and vigilance they also avoid an accident and are made heroes. Their kindness makes them friends, including important people who can help find the mystery of their missing father. Also starring Dinah Sheridan as Mother/Mrs. Waterbury, Bernard Cribbins as Albert Perks, William Mervyn as Old Gentleman, Peter Bromilow as Doctor Forrest, Ann Lancaster as Ruth and Gordon Whiting as Russian. It was number 29 on The 100 Greatest Family Films, and it was number 24 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Very good!
Determine the sentiment:

I have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like "Barfly" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch "Barfly".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of the best films I've seen from the silent era (sad to say, I've yet to see too many with the exception of Chaplin/Keaton stuff). Very visually brilliant, with insanely influential style in editing and composition. Really unique (especially for its time) camera angles and extremely hectic editing. Definitely a must see for the film nerd.

The downside is that it is a bit too in your face about its politics (I have no problem with politics in film, as long as they are subtle or at least somewhat ignorable as a backseat to the story). Also, it's not an "entertainment" film, which is fine, but it's not something I'm going to watch a billion times. This is art, plain and simple, like it or not.

Worth an A+ for influence alone, but based on personal enjoyment, I give it an A-.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!

In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.

If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.

No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel  it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow  that is far more exiting than 'Target'.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Just a short comment! I want to say that I like this movie very much! Sandra Bullock is my favourite actress. I like the whole story, from the beginning until the end! I have it on tape and I can watch it a 100 times, it doesn't matter!!!
The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her "doe-eyed" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film was a huge surprise to me while i watched it at Cinequest in the big California Theatre in San Jose. It's a musical, which normally I don't like, but I have to say this one was different. Robert Peters, who directed the film and stared in it, did such a wonderful job. During his Q & A he told the audience that he only had two other people for his crew! Most of the dialouge was made up on the fly and he actually made the film while attending another film festival in Germany! I can't say enough great things about this movie, the only bad thing is that you really tend to notice the camera work and it shakes a bit. If you happen to come across this film- check it out!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

It would seem a given, but if a viewer forgets context, he risks missing an opportunity of enjoyment.

It is easy to carp, from the lofty heights of the 21st century, at styles and prices of the Great Depression years; but the intelligent viewer will remember that magic word, "context," and better understand and, thus, enjoy "Accidents Will Happen." 

Among the actors, Ronald Reagan again showed himself a good-looking and personable guy, and again gave a right-on performance.

A reviewer earlier said Gloria Blondell played the nasty wife, but that was wrong: She plays the concession-stand clerk who has a crush on the Reagan character, Eric Gregg, but keeps hands off as long as he is married.

Gloria was cute. Not as lushly beautiful as her sister, Joan, she was still attractive and a good actress. Perhaps her looking somewhat like Joan was a detriment to having a more successful career, and it is certainly our loss.

Sheila Bromley was Mrs. Gregg, and played it well.

Other actors included Dick Purcell, and the great Earl Dwire got to play something besides a villainous cowboy.

Again, most of the players never attained the "household-name" status many of them deserved, but they by gosh gave good performances here, in a story that is still current.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Where do I start? First off, the story sucks. The acting sucks, the effects really suck, I guess I'll start with the story. The story for Komodo vs. Cobra: number one, it doesn't explain how or when the Komodo and the cobra even got there. Or for that matter, how it was created. The acting: TERRIBLE! It seems like the director just pulled a few people from the street (which is probably what he did). And last and definitely the least, the effects: they are so horrible that the komodo doesn't even look like a komodo, just a dinosaur, that looks incredibly unrealistic. The water doesn't even move when the cobra appears. All in all: terrible piece of crap, don't even think about renting it.
This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

How can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.

The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.

While "Robin Hood: Men In Tights" is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by "Real Genius"), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are "changed" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they "changed" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary "supporting role" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is "based upon," the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a film about passion. The passion it depicts is largely misdirected, even for the leading man. But therein lies the incredible power of this film: it shows us that what we believe can be contaminated by nonsense, and can even lead us to do things that are destructive -- to ourselves or others. Moreover, those who try to escape from acquiring passion (watch the druggie who visits the studio) also risk self-destruction.

The world needs to hear the message of this movie more often.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This second full-length Lone Ranger feature doesn't measure up to the 1956 classic but is a fine film with enough rough and tumble action and moves along at a good clip. The Ranger looks into a series of mysterious murders which have a sinister pattern to them with peaceful Indians being the victims of a gang of hooded killers. There are more killings and violence usually associated with Lone Ranger adventures and the film has an undercurrent of racial insensitivity, the comments of which are sprinkled throughout the screenplay. The Ranger uses disguises as only he can to piece together clues and expose the outlaw band and bring them to justice. Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels star in a colorful presentation that shows the desert and cactus country of old Tucson to good advantage. The music score is good but the familiar William Tell Overture theme is nudged aside by vocals that are interesting but lack the flourish and beauty of the Ranger's traditional theme.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.

The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.

On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.

It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.

She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?

At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I's a big struggle. As a story that is surreal, this movie could've been great (as great as it is rated by some here), but mixed with the acting (director and relatives playing major roles, due to financial reasons I reckon) found in here ... although calling this acting, is not only a stretch of that word, it's giving it a new meaning! A whole new meaning! 

If you are into surreal movies (there are some that I do like actually, see the Japanese Strange Circus for example), you might be able to overlook the flaws (see above) and enjoy this more. There are great ideas here, after all! Many great metaphors and ambiguous scenes, but while watching this (with a group of friends) almost all of us, just couldn't stop laughing ... not the intention of the director of course! Again, everyone has their own liking, as one can see by the high rating of this movie, but I could only recommend the movie if you're aware of the work that Alejandro Jodorowsky has done and/or are a fan of his!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to "Showgirls" or the two most recent "Star Wars" films, "Lost Horizon" is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party ("Family")?

Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another ("Every Little Thing You Do")? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system ("Question Me An Answer")? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Having seen most of the Coen Brothers previous films I expected something different and slighty off centre. OBWAT is certainly those things, but it also has a heart as big as..well..as big as Mississippi. It is one of the most plainly enjoyable movies to have come out in recent times, intelligent, well-crafted, clever and superbly acted.

Characters are delivered in their myriad shades by a group of marvellous actors. George Clooney winning me over completely with his Clark Gable-ish looks and character. Having only ever seen him in Three Kings and his Thin Red Line cameo, I am now a fan. More comedy please George.

John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson ably assist, especially Nelson. If ever "The Simpsons" is made into a movie then he must be a natural to play Cletus the slack-jawed yokel. I don't think there is a performance that falls short of excellent from the entire cast. My special favorite is Stephen Root as the blind Radio Station Man.

Great old-timey music, a jiggy type dance by Clooney that I am trying to learn, and a feel of depression era southern US enhanced by sepia-like photography make this the best movie I've see so far this century. The only drawback to the film is that it has almost sent me broke buying the soundtrack, the DVD and a DVD player to play it on....it's THAT good!


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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.

I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.

Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.

This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.

If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. "Constantine"), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la "Manos The Hands of Fate"). Now that I've seen "Dr. Gore" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.

I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent "Circle of Iron" or "The Killer Shrews" instead.
Now this is the sort of film we used to get weekly . Now-a-days it is rare to see a drama that depends on the cast talking to each other.

There are no explosions, car chases or any chases,there are implied sexual situations.This is not film for the younger crowd, It is for those that appreciate people talking to each other,They do argue a lot as we have married couple having mid life problems.

Emily Watson & Tom Wilkinson are seemingly a very happy middle aged loving man & wife. Now living in this same small London suburb, handsome, Rupert Everett returns home to visit his wealthy father.

He of course meets Emily Watson, It would be easy for anyone to be smitten by Emily. I say no more, except that as the credits begin there is a fatal accident,the rest of the film is about the repercussions of this accident & all the lies the various characters tell..

The acting by this trio & the others is excellent.

Julien Fellows wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Nigel Balchin. He also directed, this was his first directorial attempt & he did very well. The entire production is first rate.

The film had a few month theatrical run in late 2005, is under 80 theatres. This to me is a shame, Stupid comedies open on at least 2000 screens but real good drams as this & many others open in only a few.

By the way there are some very funny lines regarding certain situations.

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie received a great write up in Blockbusters 'coming attraction' I was looking forward to the release date,08/07/02. The plot sounds reasonable, the cast alone should have guaranteed a side-splitter, but whoa there; apart from the 'off the wall betting events' this was quite a bore.

This will never become a comedy classic, and I'm afraid it has done no help to the fine comedy reputation of John Cleese. Rowan Atkinson, now he was quite funny, in a Rowan Atkinson sort of way!
What's an example of a movie review?

Pierre Jolivet plays a Don Quixote character, unable to speak, living in a world incompatible with modern life. He trusts to his homemade weaponry - helmet, sleeves, and spear - made out of hubcaps, seat cushions, and discarded office furniture. Just as Don Quixote rode Rocicante, "The Man" rides his contraption (literally) transcending the lost lives caught up the harsh and demeaning modern world - soaring above the earth, away from the plight of modern man. Both characters ride in search of adventure in an effort to right the wrongs of the world. Both characters are guardian knights of values unfamiliar to most of the other characters in the story.

Unlike Cervantes's tale, in this movie we identify more directly with the anachronistic ideals of the main character. We can only compare this alien and forbidding landscape to the lush and beautiful world we live in. Our frame of reference is the fantasy realm which the lone knight perhaps remembers. Our vision would be one which expects the main character to triumph, to vanquish, to change his world (for the better) back into a world of plenty that no longer exists.

We look at this movie and see a true knight among a world of humans-as-animals. Don Quixote considered himself a true knight among animals.

With Cervantes's tale we can only see the dreamer, without really understanding the scope of his anachronistic displacement. In Besson's and Jolivet's tale we see the new world from the eyes of Don Quixote, because we value the same visions and ideals as the crusading main character.
I liked this movie. Unlike other thrillers you learn to know the killers very well. You also get to know the two detectives hunting them. The killers are two high school kids. They are very intelligent and want to prove they are smarter than the police so they plan the "perfect crime". We all know this crime will not turn out perfect. What we don't know is if they will be caught, or may be just one of them, or even none. In a way I kind of hoped they both would get away with it, although I don't know if this was the movies intention.

The story is told in a nice way. You are starting to get to know the people involved. The character of Sandra Bullock is likable but has her own secret, which works against her. Ben Chaplin is pretty good as Sam and the two kids are both great. The scenes between them are the better scenes in the movie.

I think you can say the movie is pretty good and not as predictable you would think. For a nice evening with a movie, 'Murder by Numbers' is a good one.

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

positive
OK...ths film (like Segal's last few films) once again goes beyond the "knock 'em down, kick 'em in the groin, shoot 'em in the face, get revenge against the bad guys for hurting my sister's niece's cousin" stuff Seagal was into for a while. Geepers, Steven started thinking, and using his bucks to make movies with actual ideas in them. SURE....there is plenty of action in this flick, but also some thought and heart. It's not an Oscar flick, but well worth the effort, unless the viewer is so into brain dead violence that it hurts to have to think for longer than a second. It's worth a rental..or two!!

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

positive
I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.

Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.

The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.

Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.

Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.