cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.

But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.

The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.

Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.

Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation ("I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...") that was to be found in the French films.

And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as "I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white".
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What kind I say about this movie. well for starters, I thought that this film was okay, not the greatest not worst. I said this cause I thought that the script was great and original, really different and refreshing. Now I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film that I've seeing cause of the acting. The actors that played each role, seems that they played them without emotions, as if they took the life out of them. When the wife laughed or cried, this didn't look real to me for some reason, that's just an example, but sincerely all the characters didn't act real at all. I wish I could say more positive things about this film so you guys can see it at least once but how can I do that since I know that I'm not going to see this movie again. I rented this film from the library of my school, without hearing anything about the film itself or the director. I took a chance because the story that was describe on the back sounded really interesting and it really was.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie i totally not funny, and I would imagine to be pretty offensive to Jewish people. (and I am not Jewish) Why? First, the whole movie portray the protagonist Zucker as a lier/cheat running shady business and deals, while his son is gay, his daughter is lesbian, and his niece is a slut. Then there is the incestuous relationship that happens in the family, first his daughter with his Joshua and Jana, and then his son with his niece. Two incestuous relationship running in family. I am surprised they didn't add the plot of having a mentally disabled in the family...Now, that would really complete the Nazi ideal sub-human! (gay, lesbian, Jew...)

Totally disgusting film. I am surprised this film gets no response from any Jewish community.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.

Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.

Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.

Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.

What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Lots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

i think that it was just like Lizzie McGuire except that it was a lot worse than the original. the only thing that is different is that she likes animals and science and all of that geeky stuff. everything else is the same. she likes a guy that she is too nervous to ask out. and later she finds a guy that does like her and she has no clue. i think that people need to quit making that same kind of shows. and another thing that is the same is that it is always thaw the friends are two girls and one guy. don't people think that these things get old and tired and these ideas keep being used over and over and yet they keep using these ideas. but i do know people who watch this show and i know that they like them.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is a classic animated film from the cartoon series! Most of the major characters get alot of screen time plus do extra characters aswell! The film`s focus is on the superstar characters vacation and each one has his/her very unique summer fun! Its very funny from beginning to end! It has excellent color, great music and believe it or not I have seen this more than any movie. Its that great and in MY opinion its perfect!
Determine the sentiment:

If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I loved this movie! Yes, it is rather cheap and I'm sure plenty of reviews will be snooty about that. But my goodness what a lot they pack in for the cash involved. I was reminded of the early work of Sam Raimi. Yes it is rough, but has good energy and plenty of fun. The acting ranges from the very good in Scott Ironside and Shawn Paul Hasser, to the not so good in some of the lesser parts. Is it a cult movie? Well it grew on me. First time I liked it but by the 3rd viewing I was loving it. The movie is probably a 7 out of 10 but I'm giving it 8 for sheer cheek. Anyone who can pull this off for 8 grand is worth watching. Almost makes me want to visit Scotland!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Every great once in a while, you stumble upon a movie that exceeds even your wildest expectations. Given the IMDb rating of 4.0, I wasn't really expecting much with The Brotherhood of Satan. I hoped that at a minimum it might be cheesy fun like The Devil's Rain or any of the other early 70s similarly themed Satanic horror films. I couldn't' have been more wrong. What I got instead was an ambitious and intelligent film with a cast I really enjoyed. Speaking in broad terms to avoid giving anything away, the film's style and structure are much more experimental than the straightforward storytelling so prominent in the early 70s. The Brotherhood of Satan doesn't beat you over the head with plot points and explanations. A lot is left to the viewer to fill in the blanks. As a viewer, you know something is amiss, but for the longest period you're just not sure what it is. The unknown helps make for a far creepier atmosphere than most similar films. The ending is effective with its surreal imagery. I sat in amazement as the final credits began to roll. Those wanting a big slam-bang finale will be disappointed with the ending's simplicity. A lesser film would have tried to pull out all the stops and would, most likely, have failed miserably.

There are moments in the film where it's easy to forget the director, Bernard McEveety, had primarily worked in television before The Brotherhood of Satan. There are a few scenes that are so well set-up, lit, and shot that even the most accomplished of directors could learn a thing or two. For example, I've seen enough films over the years to realize that directors can sometimes seem to have trouble shooting widescreen shots indoors. Not here. The scene where the men are discussing their plan of action in the sheriff's office is amazing. We see all five men at once  each doing their own thing as in real life. In a lesser film, we might see all the men at once, but each would be motionless, quietly waiting their turn to deliver their dialogue. It's a small scene, but it looks so natural and is so beautifully shot that it's one of my favorite moments of The Brotherhood of Satan.

Finally, I mentioned the acting in my opening, so without going into a long-winded speech, I'll just say that The Brotherhood of Satan features Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones. Any film with these two guys is almost an automatic winner with me.
I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: there is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is one of those religious horror films which never explain why the forces of "evil" are 10,000 times stronger than those of "good". We've got here a Satanic cult which can: 1) "beam away" people (like in "Star Trek"), 2) kill through little children's dolls, 3) transfer a soul from one body into another, 4) hypnotize telepathically from a bigger distance, and 5) cause drastic car-crashes in which selected persons turn into spaghetti while others (kids, in this case) survive unscathed.

On the other hand, the forces of "good" can: 1) sit around helplessly, 2) stand around cluelessly, 3) panic, 4) laugh hysterically, 5) waste time by doing nothing, 6) read comics while people get slaughtered by the dozens, and 7) arrive too late to Satanic rituals.

In every religious horror movie I have to assume that that movie's world is inhabited by God and by Satan. I also have to assume that Satan can't be 1,000,000 times more powerful, unless the movie has a world order resembling that of Hell. In other words, where were the priests in this film who knew something? The best that this movie's priest could do is guess that there are some witches about - nothing else - from reading all those books in his study. At the first sight of violence this priest becomes catatonic, then laughs hysterically, only to finish in a major panic attack. So this is supposed to be God's contribution to fighting Satan? Ridiculous. Every good religious horror film has the powers of "good" equipped with some form of (more-or-less) supernatural power, or at least SOME concrete knowledge of how to fight "evil". In that sense this movie is quite idiotic. As is the casting of the droll Martin to play the high priest(!) of the cult. There is very little menace or awe in watching the quirky Martin lead a Satanic ritual. I mean, it didn't have to be Christopher Lee or Langhella, but couldn't they have found someone less funny-looking? Also, why does the couple go back to the town after their car is put out of the running? After their "friendly" encounter with the town's folk no sane person would have gone back; they should've just walked on. The man's explanation to his girlfriend (and the viewer) is that "who knows what's in that direction".
A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I love this Disney Movie! Its a real cute movie, and when it comes on again, I will have to make a mental note to tape it. I really like how they break into the bank trying to find Susie's parents information. You should really see this movie. Its great for the whole family.

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

positive
This was touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.

This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.

If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would kill to get a shot @ a film like this.

The claustrophobia of the studio is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for today. The "legalise all drugs" speech is powerful and you might find yourself agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit contrived and clichéd.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work. 

It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus, extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should be studied by generations of film students. 

10 out of 10 for inventive use of "Bad To The Bone" before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I really liked this movie ... but the ads I saw implied, and one published review actually said, that this movie "benefits from a light touch." That to me is very misleading.

There is indeed plenty of humor: eccentric, un-subtle, sometimes somewhat twisted humor: the kind of humor I generally find very appealing indeed. But most of the humor is the kind that appears conscious at all times of things deeply serious, deeply sensitive, even deeply painful. The movie weaves together themes of Past and Present, Perception and Truth, Memory and Activity, Life and Death. The entire movie is suffused by the history of European anti-Semiticism in general, and of the Holocaust in particular.

How can Humor and Horror be combined in the same movie? The review I saw suggested that the humor is Absurdist. I don't think this is the case at all; at least not in the common sense. Instead, I think this movie stands in the tradition of much Jewish / Yiddish literature and theatre. I don't claim to be any kind of expert in this area; but from what I've seen, Humor is used, in this cultural context, both as a coping tool for the horribly tragic experiences of this people; and also Humor is used as a means of "recovering the Divine" for men and women who choose a path of Faith rather than a path of either Despair or Absurdism. See "Fiddler on the Roof" for Humor used in both ways in this rich tradition.

Elijah Wood (Jonathon) Wood wears horn rimmed glasses that really make him look, well, strange: compare Sin City when he wore the same kinds of glasses with chilling effect. In this movie, it's easy to see how the glasses become a metaphor for both his Search and for his Struggle between Perception and Truth. Eugene Hutz (Young Alex) and Boris Lesking (Old Alex) are both really just wonderful. Jonathon and Young Alex are from the same generation, yet seem so very, very different; and then find that they are not so different after all. And the way in which the Apparent Narrative Voice changes gradually from that of Jonathon to that of Young Alex .. as a journey of intended discovery for Jonathon becomes one of discovery for both Young Alex and Old Alex ... is to me so very moving.

There are some wonderful scenes and panoramas from (I'm told) Prague and environs, standing in for the Ukraine of the story line. All feels very authentic and seems to give a wonderful sense of place; although I've never been myself to the Ukraine and can hardly testify to this from first hand experience.

All in all, if you're looking for light comedy, I would not recommend this movie at all. On the other hand, if you are interested in a wonderful, delightful, and deeply moving film, please, check out this wonderful movie.
It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, "Hearts of Darkness," I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: "Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service." It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: "I mean, the man's a geniussometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say "did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs" and then "I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas" (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Here's what you have to remember about this movie.... IT'S A KIDS MOVIE!!!!! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm an 80s child. I was obsessed with Rainbow Brite. So, naturally I love this movie. But if you watch the other Rainbow Brite movies this one is by far the best. But, like I said, it's a kids movie. You have to judge it as a kids movie. It doesn't matter to kids if the acting, animation or script is fantastic or even good. All they care about is what happens to the characters. If the good guy (or girl) wins then it's a great movie. If not, then it's bad. You all know what I mean. You were all kids once.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.

There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.

This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.

Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Cowboys and Indians is an excellent film. The writing, acting, directing could not have been better. This was a story that begged to be told, and this group of talented individuals and teams did a superb job of doing so. Stories like this one are not pleasant ones, but serve to remind people of the social injustices that exist all around the world. It is my hope that when this film is seen that attitudes and prejudices will be changed. A film that can do that is a rare a special thing. Andrew Berzins is an excellent writer, and his talents and expertise in this field came shining through in this film. 

Thank you for telling this story!!!

Ruby
OK, I normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating/pederast/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating/ pederast/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.
Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.

It could have been much better.

2/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I seriously don´t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was first released. Sure, it´s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don´t think that the people who hated "Heaven´s Gate" really understood it. "Heaven´s Gate" in its uncut form, much like "The Deer Hunter" shows the gross differences of living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming) and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled "Americans" in Wyoming and Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted, "Heaven´s Gate", with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes. However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a blockbuster) that "Gate" and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own mind.


What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.

Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).

We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.

The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).

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

positive
This is a wonderful thriller I watched many times and never can get enough of.It's all about the obsessive love 5 people have for eachother in Paris, (un)lucky coincidences, false identities.The music makes it really gripping.There are hardly any flaws in the characters,just the end is not very credible,but a definite "must-see" still.

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

positive
I just got back from "AGS". After seeing it, I'm convinced that no matter how much it's written how he extensively researched the film, Stone NEVER has watched an NFL game in his life. Great cinematography ? Give me a break. The game montages were almost unviewable and 90% of the other shots in the film were close-ups. Was there ANYTHING in this movie that wasn't brought up in "North Dallas Forty" ?

Aging star player ... check. Young hot shot .... check. Painkillers .... check. Owner who doesn't "get it" .... check. Crazy off-field behavior .... check

Also, it's the playoffs in Dallas (i.e Dec or Jan) in an outdoor stadium, yet people sitting there in tank-tops and shorts ! And what was with those lights ? Were they playing in a Japanese Kabuki theater or a sports stadium ?

And the strategy shown in the game was laughable. It's fourth & 1 inside the "Sharks'" 30. Dallas leads 35-31. KICK THE FRIGGING FIELD GOAL. Not only would this had made sense football-wise, but you'd then have an even better final sequence where they could have scored and had to go for the two-point conversion. Hell, tie the game w/ the extra point and Stone could have made it an even 3 hours with overtime.

Were the lame montages of "old time" football players supposed to be a tribute to the game ? Give me a break.

And the script ... ugh. More cliches than you can shake a stick at .. oops, there's another one.

"Slapshot" was better than this movie. By far.

1/10.

Skips this at all costs.


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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.

1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. "The Bible doesn't say there is aliens." "Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.

2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.

3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.

4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.

I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their "Faith Message" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am a 20 year old bloke from England. I don't cry at films. But this one moved me. I cried like a girl! This is absolutely the most moving film I have ever seen, even though the story was questionable. Joseph Mazello's little face when he dreams of crying made me sob every time. How could anyone hurt such a sweet looking kid? I'm going to cry now just thinking about it! Remarkable.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.

Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in "Wall Street".

If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of "Easy Rider", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in "The Accused".
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:



The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.

The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!

If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.

I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Lovingly crafted and terribly interesting to watch Garfield's gritty, breakthrough performance (introducing a new kind of rebellious acting style that would carry over to the Brandos and Clifts and so on after the war) but all that sisterly affection is a bit suffocating. Priscilla Lane is a bright, engaging performer but the other sisters don't really register (though they're all allowed to be tart and witty) and I just had a hard time buying any of the other male characters besides Garfield. Jeffrey Lynn is a pleasant enough actor, but he lacks the movie star weight to match up with Garfield's hard luck Mickey Borden and that throws the film a bit out of whack. (Imagine a Jimmy Stewart or someone in the part.) Also, I was not convinced that Garfield would make the pivotal (to say the least) final decision that he made. The film needed another half hour of running time to better explain that action; it feels awfully rushed and under-motivated.

Still, it's not hard to understand how anybody who grew up with this picture would remember it fondly. It falls short of being a classic, but it does contain a few classic moments. The two gate swinging scenes are pure movie magic.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I recently bought this movie for three bucks at a garage sale, and while I'm glad I didn't have to pay the usual $19.99 for this DVD, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was.

It's set up like a horror anthology, broken up into 5 tales, including the 'connector' story which involves four teenagers who's car breaks down a dark, lonely road in the middle of the night. Apparently, these kiddos like horror stories, because that's what they decide to do until morning - tell spooky stories around a campfire. Each character takes their turn telling a story, after which their own story is wrapped up with a nice little twist.

The first story, "The Hook" is kinda a waste of time, a bit bland and dull. Luckily, this is not one of the main stories and only lasts maybe 5 minutes. It's intended merely to introduce the film and it's easy to overlook the unoriginality of this piece.

The second story, "The Honeymooners" is, eh, okay. It's about - you guessed it - two people on their honeymoon! They're traveling around in an RV headed to Las Vegas. They decide to stop somewhere for the night, but they're quickly warned by a mysterious stranger to leave the location, or risk being attacked by some dangerous, unknown creatures. This story has a pretty good setup, but just merely an 'ok' delivery. Basically, it's fairly entertaining and mysterious till the monsters show up, then it's just kinda iffy.

The third story, "People Can Lick Too" is my personal favorite. It involves a young girl who's parents are going out for the night and who's older sis is ditching her for a party. So, she's going to be all alone - a fact she makes known to an internet buddy of hers. Trouble is, that internet buddy? Is not exactly a thirteen-year-old girl. This story's conclusion is slightly less climatic than I might have liked to have seen, but still pretty dang good.

The final story, "The Locket" is definitely the one packed with the most atmosphere. Set in a creepy mansion on a dark, rainy night, it's the tale of a young man (played by Glenn Quinn!) traveling around on a motorcycle who stumbles across this house just at the time that he conveniently has a problem with his bike. He meets the mute girl who lives in the house, and falls in love with her at first sight. Unfortunately, not everything is all fine and dandy - and it might have something to do with that locket hanging around her pretty neck...

After the stories are wrapped up, we're presented with a twist involving the four teens in the car, a twist which, in retrospect, should have been obvious, but which it didn't really see coming, and it's a quite pleasing conclusion to film.

So, all in all, a good movie. Rent it if you can, because unfortunately, I don't really think it has a lot re-watching value. But next time you're in the mood for a vaguely scary litte flick in the same vein as "Tales of the Darkside" or something, grab this movie and some popcorn, turn off all the lights, and treat yourself to this surprisingly nifty little flick.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive