cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
H.O.T.S. is proof that at one time, the movie industry said "F-OFF" to the censors, and made movies with whatever they wanted! In today's world, this movie would be too "over the top" and "extreme" for it to be anywhere than behind a velvet curtain. Although, BestBuy had several copies on their $5.99 rack (in case anyone wanted to get a copy)! The movie was brilliant in its own way, in that it blended humor into a T&A movie loaded with Playboy Playmates! Unlike most skin flicks, it did have a plot. That, however, is not exactly why you would watch H.O.T.S.

H.O.T.S. is a college movie that reminds me of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, in that it takes a group of "average people" and puts them against the elite rich preppies that most people can't stand! The only difference is that the "Nerds" in this movie have a much better shot at getting laid! I notice that there are some people who would rate this movie low, and to me that is ignorant! Obviously this is not intended to win Oscars or break barriers in film. If you are looking for that, then go watch what ever the critics pick for you! You have to appreciate the fact that this movie actually had a funny plot, decent acting (for the most part given the genre), and plenty of girls getting naked! H.O.T.S. is one of those movies you watch to get your mind off of modern day problems and daily stress, and instead, laugh and have a good time! If you are looking for a funny college-based movie that has enough skin to turn a pink Miata straight, then you should really check out H.O.T.S.!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

wow is all i could say i really loved the movie and one thing i could say to Aaron carter is that i really think that you should be in a lot more movies cause you rock.i love Aaron carter so much hes hot and so i say thank you a lot for making this movie great.i really do so wish he would be able to make a lot more movies because he his a great dancer, actor, and singer. i so wish i could sing as good as he could. and I've been a fan of his for like ever and i will never ever stop loving him. i rented the movie and I've had it for two days and iv'e literally watched it over like 10 times. laugh out loud you could call me crazy but that just proves that i liked it a lot. if u wanna talk you can hit me up at dvlbab300@aol.com so e-mail me if you wanna. I LOVE YOU AARON CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...

Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.

The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.

As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the "hot chick" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words "its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar." Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.

Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.

It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.

My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian."
Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."

Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights 

He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.

These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Newly-pregnant Knight bolts from husband for non-specific reasons which are apparently self-related. On the road, she becomes entangled with Caan, brain-damaged former football star, and Duvall, wacky but abusive cop. The type of movie that could only have been spawned in the 60's. Worth a look for its non-formula plot and for early performances by future stars.

Disappointing resolution does not take away too much from rest of flick, which shows an interesting slice of life.

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

positive
This is standard fare from a director who as long been amongst my favourites.

Even though its very flat in comparison to a lot of his other work but its Argento and this may be biased but I'm gonna be giving it a good review anyway.

It does contain a lot of good ideas. The subtle voyeuristic element. The needles under the eyes. The gory and disturbing deaths. And the Argento cliché flashback.

Downsides include the heavy metal soundtrack, acting and the ending.

All the film is made worth it for the birds in the theatre sequence near the end.

A fairly good film from Argento but he as done better. A lot better!

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

You can find an anti-war statement here without looking too hard; that layer is hackneyed. Or you can find a value neutral comment on the madness of war (stripped of "judgement"); that layer is completely uninteresting.

Or you can watch this for the darn good entertainment value of Duvall's one-liners, but that's just a coating for commercial mastication.

You can try to view this as a 'realistic' Vietnam war film, but ask any veteran and he'll swat down that notion -- most vets will say it stinks.

Or view it as a 'will he or won't he' morality play -- nothing rich there, either.

Where I found the value was in the superb self-reference. Coppola needed a container with great enough dimensions (the war) to fit the greatness of the skilled multi-dimensional actor playing 'a great man'.

Brando the man was as much of a maverick as the Kurtz character. The studios were uncomfortable with his acting 'method', yet he always excelled and won accolades; the 'generals' are uncomfortable with Kurtz's 'unsound methods', in spite of his strategic genius.

So Coppola makes a movie all about Brando's greatness. To hammer on the point, he places himself in the movie (as Hopper, a manic photojournalist laden with multiple cameras) to spout his praises. Brando himself is only seen in half-light and silhouettes -- brilliant cinematography by Storaro that only increases the actor's power. And he goes out like the sacrificial bull to complete the narrative equation. Oh, yes: "the horror..." 

Other pieces of interest: the great use of point of view camera perspectives, including 'being in the firefight' long before "Private Ryan"; the ground breaking use of sound, notably the ominous flanging sweeps and the sonic depiction of an acid trip.

Don't get caught in the outer layers; the rich part you should despoil from this is the brilliant core of sound, vision and self-reference.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Very silly high school/teen flick about geeks trying to prove themselves better than the rich brats. Sound familiar? This television movie from director Rod Amateau ("Uncommon Valour" and some "Dukes of Hazaard" episodes believe it or not) says nothing, does nothing, and surely will entertain very few.

Notable for its "who's who" of television cast, including Michael J. Fox, Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), and Todd Bridges ("Different Strokes"). This lame effort barely limps over the line. Also stars Anthony Edwards ("E.R.").

Saturday, September 5, 1998 - Video
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is a wonderfully gritty drama, detailing the various sides of the international heroin drug-trade--From the hills of northern Pakistan, where the tacitly allowed cultivation of opium-poppies occurs on a vast scale; to the jetsetting "Euro-Trash" in Germany and England who arrange the importation of processed heroin in multi-kilo smuggled shipments; to the end-users caught up in the web of addiction and the crime needed to support their growing habit; and finally all the levels of international government corruption and hypocrisy surrounding police efforts at controlling "the drug problem"---this drama is sketched out with a wide array of in-depth well-rounded characters, fully evolved plot, and excellent character acting and location shooting.

This puts Hollywood epics like "The French Connection" in their place!

Traffik is a deeply thought-provoking and suspenseful tale of modern drug-related espionage, and the international efforts of many people to try to eliminate it.

Unlike many "crime dramas" revolving around drugs, Traffik focusses strongly on uncovering the societal *reasons* that people slide into drug addiction... As one of the characters puts it "...until we, as a society, construct a world that people want to participate in, instead of wanting to escape from, we will not be able to stop people from taking drugs..."

This is a fascinating and fully engrossing drama. I highly recommend it!
Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.

The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.

The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new. 

Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.

I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema. 

I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.

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

negative
This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

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

positive
This frothy romantic comedy is based on the kind of story I loved as a teenager, but now find rather distasteful. In the case of May-September attachments, doubtless what is on the mind of the elder party is either lust, or an inability to face the reality of aging, or both. And the younger is most likely looking for the kind parent that she (or he) lacked as a child. These underlying agendas seem more pathetic than romantic to me now; there is also something rather predatory about them.

Dick Powell looked a bit embarrassed--as well he should--at playing the elder lover in this silly story. He was, at fifty, attempting the role of a thirty-eight-year-old man romancing a teen-ager. But young Debbie Reynolds was a knockout--pretty and saucy and full of vinegar--as a misbehaving seventeen-year-old presented as a kind of "gift" to the morally upright and honest screenwriter, as a subject for him to study. Her spirited performance wrung from me a better rating than this film would otherwise deserve. Anne Francis was cast as Powell's beautiful, but brittle fiancée, and handled her small role deftly.

Some of the dialogue was quite amusing, too, so it's not a total washout.

5/10

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I know Gerrit. He presently lives in the U.S. This film is based on events in the lives of both Gerrit and Celeste Wolfaardt. It's a remarkable story. It inspired me to read "Cry, Beloved Country." The film is well-produced. The music is beautiful.

The story is told in flashbacks. You learn the stories of a white racist South African (Gerrit) and a black South African (Moses). Their lives intersect violently. The ending is not typical Hollywood -- it's unusually realistic and ends on a note that encourages you to think about the characters and the themes.

Be sure to watch through the credits -- you'll get to see footage of Gerrit in real life.
Actually I'll admit I'm a political junkie, so this resonated with me, but the erratic nature of Ms. Green (yes I know what they did to her), but the ending was such a copout and totally inconsistent with the film itself.

Why can't Barry L and crew just left us wondering what he was going to do? Let us debate it.

Instead they have this "oh I'm not worthy" bullshit ending and it just shows that when the chips were down it's better to leave the table instead of doubling down. Stop the Disney ending and putting a bow on it. Life isn't easy, they should have had the courage to give the main character some backbone.

We had to listen to the rhetoric the entire movie... and then it turned sniveling and the stupid, inane behavior by Ms. Green (when the crap was out of her system) just made for a ridiculous near end of the movie that was icing on the cake.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: My 10/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In "Pink Flamingos" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.

*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is "who is the fifth cylon". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Dear Readers, 2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick at his best...although I really can't say that as Space Odyssey is his only film I've ever watched. But still, it's a good film. Strange, but good.

The movie is in three acts, much like the novel...which is unsurprising since the author wrote the screenplay. Anyhow, we first start out with the simple yet spectacular opening with Also Sparach Zarathustra blaring on the speakers. Then comes the boring beyond belief 'Dawn of Man' sequence. Then there's the odd 'Finding of the Monolith' sequence on the Moon, played to Strauss's Blue Danube. Finally things get good with the Spaceship scenes and HAL going berserk and killing people. After that things die down and we have the 'Entering the Monolith' sequence which was WAY too long and the ultra-strange ending. Even though, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film. It's not Star Wars, Stargate, Terminator, or The Abyss, but it rocks. My compliments to the chef, Mr. Kubrick.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.

The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.

Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.

And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a movie from Toilet Pictures. If the name of the production company is any indication how stinky a movie is, then this would be it. I think I'm not really a fan of horror movies, not that I'm chicken, but rather this year alone, I haven't been genuinely spooked by what's on offer so far, be it from the West, or from Asia. 9:56 is no different, great premise, but poor execution, relying on clichéd techniques (I think these are the only tools of the trade available?) to try and elicit some heart thumping moments.

Se-jin (Ko So-young) is a lonely career woman, who one day notices that some apartments in the block of flats opposite hers, undergo blackouts simultaneously at precisely 9:56pm everyday. No, she's no voyeur, but a series of unexplained deaths in the neighbourhood, including one which she encounters herself on a subway, start to draw her deeper and deeper into the mystery surrounding these deaths.

With horror movies, there's always a pseudo-logical explanation within the movie about how the spooks come about. That's just about the most interesting thing that happens in the film, the unravelling of the "Truth", although it won't take seasoned film lovers to guess the plot halfway through. Which of course makes it a very unsatisfying experience watching this movie.

There's a myriad of characters like the wheelchair bound girl, and the neighbours who take turns to care for her, as well as a schoolgirl, detective, a mentally challenged boy and a spooky train commuter. But following genre formula, these folks are there usually as fodder for deaths, or in this case, pointless red herring characters whose sole aim by the filmmakers is to mislead the audience, nevermind if they convolute, or add little to forward the plot.

And don't get me started on the techniques employed here. Quick cuts, sudden appearances, long hair ghouls (ahhhhhhh, so passe!) who can't move properly, copious amount of blood like it flows down a mountain for free, and the list goes on. But credit to the sound engineers for creating some ear piercing bone crunching sounds used each time the spooks move, though it seems like a one trick pony.

Don't waste time on this, even if you're a horror fan. It's a complete waste of a promising premise, and in the end, you feel like you've just be taken on a ride. A very long and painful one to endure. It's high time for some innovation in this genre, otherwise one film will easily look like another, with ugly long haired monsters moving funny but with the ability to make sudden appearances accompanied by loud sounds. Oh, and can someone oil those doors while they're at it as well.
I have watched this film several times over the years and always find it an entertaining experience. As a retired airline pilot, I am interested in most aviation movies and this is one of the better ones. I know that Lindbergh was only 25 years old at the time of his historic solo flight to Paris and that James Stewart was almost 50 when making this movie but I can overlook that fact because Stewart has always been one of my all-time favorite actors and does one of his usual outstanding performances as the "lone eagle".

There is a good mixture of comedy and drama throughout the film and a good use of flashbacks. It also helps that James Stewart was a pilot in real life both in the military and civilian life.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'd like to start by saying I would not go see this movie again if they were giving out popcorn made of solid gold and the ticket granted me eternal life. This movie was terrible. I can't give this it a truly honest rating because there are no negative stars. The acting is absolutely terrible. This movie is a travesty, based on the classic, "The Most Dangerous Game". If you really want to torture yourself for 90 minutes rent something like Gigli. At least J-Lo provides some better scenery, Ben should pacify the ladies viewing it. I'm not upset about the $7 I paid to see the move, I'd just like the 90 minutes of my life back.

"Can you give me my time back!?!" Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed "hero," (complete with fashionable "Miami Vice" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.

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

negative
OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original "D.O.A." is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.

The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after "The Right Stuff" made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.

This is more of an "update" of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before "Home Alone" made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.

The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end. 

I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Firstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy.

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

negative
The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.

The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are "senior citizens", the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence

How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.

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

positive
You may be interested to know that BARRICADE was viewed as a failure by the studio and shelved for a year before ALICE FAYE's popularity reached such a high that the studio decided to release the film despite the fact that it was never fully completed. It fared modestly OK at the box-office.

Faye refers to a murder during her nightclub stint in New York City--and this scene was actually in the script and was the way the film was to start. Instead, it is entirely missing and what could have been an exciting sequence (including a complete song number by Faye) was never filmed. However, the rest of the story is pretty much intact and made release of the film possible at a running time of 71 minutes.

A tired looking WARNER BAXTER is too old to be believable as Faye's romantic interest and is merely perfunctory as the broken down reporter. Audiences today would be offended by the depiction of Chinese using fractured English phrases like "Me likey make noisy". Key Luke is one of the Chinese loyalists but plays his role in a low-key, straightforward way. Arthur Treacher is all but invisible and yet gets fourth billing on screen due to editing changes in the story. Originally, Joseph Schildkraut had a role in the film but his part was eventually edited out.

A mishmash of a film that will serve as entertainment only for the most die-hard Alice Faye fans who will get a chance to see her in a dramatic role--albeit a weak one. Charles Winninger is totally wasted as a kindly man running the American consulate.

Despite all the weaknesses, there are a couple of scenes involving narrow escapes that are effectively played and Karl Freund's B&W photography is top notch.

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

negative
I was an extra on this film but wish i wasn't because its rubbish. the worst thing about this film is the music but the acting, script, editing, directing and story are terrible as well. the main reason its bad is because the budget is so low and the only way to make good film on a low budget is to have a good script. the script which should have been ripped up before the film was made isn't funny, i didn't laugh once. what did make me laugh is how makers probably think the most important thing was getting the film made, who cares if its total rubbish. the film needed about million pound more budget and a better writer. the only reason i didn't give the film one out of ten is because i felt sorry for the guy who is gonna lose a few hundred grand making this, if you do go and see it just make sure your drunk at the time. ha ha
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one. I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister), etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a truly hilarious film and one that I have seen many times. Drew Barrymore is brilliant as Josie Geller, as is David Arquette as her brother. You cringe with embarrassment at the thought of her returning to high school as the film is a reminder of what high school was really like! Her outfits are wacky and weird, and it brings back memories of those who dressed a bit differently! The gorgeous Michael Vartan was adorable as the teacher (wish there had been teachers like that when I was at high school!) and Josie's boss is fantastic. This is a film you could watch again and again, with a fabulous sound track! One for all those at school in the 90's to watch!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Ok, I'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.

I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!
The 1979 film musical of HAIR was loosely based on the infamous 1960's Broadway musical that became famous because of its infamous nude scene. The stage musical isn't really much more than a group of skits strung together with some amusing musical numbers; however for the film director Milos Foreman (who won an Oscar for directing ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) and the writers have taken the basic premise of the play and the score and constructed a real story to make the show more "user friendly" for the big screen. In the film, naive farm boy Claude Hooper Buchowski (John Savage) is about to go into the army and decides to spend a couple of days in New York where he meets a group of aging hippies (Treat Williams, Dorsey Wright, Annie Golden, Don Dacus)who get him involved in a group of nutty misadventures, including the pursuit of a snooty society girl (Beverly D'Angelo). The story divides into a series of vignettes that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, but it is all gorgeously photographed with a clever use of NYC locations and imaginatively staged musical numbers (outstandingly choreographed by the legendary Twyla Tharp). Treat Williams lights up the screen as Berger, the unconventional and free-spirited hippie who does his best to get Claude to loosen up and is matched scene for scene by Savage as Claude, who brings a lovely sweetness to the role of Claude. Annie Golden is a charmer as Jeannie, the pregnant hippie who is pregnant by Wright or Dacus, doesn't know which one is the father and doesn't seem to care. There is one outstanding musical number after another here..."Aquarius" is a tour through Central Park which includes dancing horses...Treat Williams disrupts a fancy dinner party in "I Got Life"..."Black Boys/White Boys" features the late Nell Carter and Ellen Foley extolling the ethnic virtues of men and "Easy to be Hard" is a powerful rendering of one of the best songs in the show by original cast member Cheryl Barnes, who plays Wright's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. This is a beautifully photographed, well-acted sung, and danced psychedelic acid trip of a movie that must be seen and once seen, will initiate multiple viewings as this dazzler has to much to offer to catch it all in one showing.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this movie considering this as a normal Hollywood movie but then came to know that its a Movie made for TV channel.On my DVD cover out of 2 critics comments one of the critic stephen farber from moviline reveiwed it as A best movie of the Year..

All the character were simple and decent performances except the Brain's character which never gets scope which director wanted to keeps mystery till end.. there was suspense till end but when you see the end that lady Police Officer and main culprit had a Lesbian affair seems to be totally stupid idea.God knows what happens to DAVE the male lead character..

The other Critic from Mr. Brown's Movies said that Shocking and Effective but doesn't quite live up to all the Hype... which i saw after watching the Movie .for which i was partially aggree...i should have read this first before taking the movie..
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.

We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I rented this movie not knowing what to expect but WHOA was I in for a treat!

For anyone who, like myself, was waiting for a good movie that combined horror and sci fi, it is time to rejoice because the wait has finally ended. Writing, acting, filming and directing - all top notch. I hate to admit it, but I actually cried at one point (when Dracula was talking to the crippled guy). Truly an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish. The corridors of the ship provided the perfect spooky setting for this tale and the actors were really able to make their fear come alive to me. And Coolio as a vampire....very nice!

And believe me....as great as the bulk of the movie was...the ending will BLOW YOU AWAY! I know this movie gets a lot of flack on this site for some reason but I know NONE of you saw the ending coming. Brilliant!
I had the pleasure of witnessing this brilliant film at a preview screening in Sydney. Although it was a pleasure to see it. Pleasure is not the emotion you are left with as the credits roll.

2:37 is a film that tackles not just one stigma felt by young individuals but all of them. Chief of which is isolation. It is not just to place the films final galvanising scene on a pedestal above the others, but rather it is important to see it as the culmination. And from that, it is important to realise what it represents to both you as the viewer and to the people directly effected by it.

2:37 is not a soft picture but the manner in which Mr Thalluri handles it's subject matter with a profound dignity and it's no holds barred approach acts as credit to it's message.

I do not believe films such as 2:37 should be scaled by votes of favour. Rather it should be recommended to those looking for purpose in their viewing.

A brilliantly crafted portrait of innocence lost. And a master stroke for a as of yet untaped talent.

Not to be missed.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The storyline is a ticked off claim jumper made a deal with the devil to find gold, and is forced to protect it forever. A bunch of friends find the gold and gets talked by the old miner and they're forced to blow the gold to smithereens in order to send him back to hell.

I mean seriously...how did this film NOT win the Oscar for movie of the year? What a compelling storyline of late 20 year olds running from a claim jumper straight out of the 1800's. I love how in other movies you can't kill the monster but they can knock it out...this movie they write the monster as completely indestructible.

The opening of the movie clearly rips off Nightmare on Elm Street part 4 but what the hell, not like that movie was a 5 star classic either.

Highlight of the movie is when we're introduced to a girl who's never been to school, never been out of the town, never learned to read or write....yet speaks perfect English, is smoking hot and wears the latest fashion. How did the Oscar's miss THAT? 

OK I'm done with the bad jokes, this movie is pure crap and only watch it if u have nothing better to do and all the spices on the spice rack are in alphabetical order already.

2 out of 10
Write a positive movie review.

The sort of "little" film which studios used to excel at but seldom make anymore. Sort of a "soul" version of the more well-known "The Last Of The Blonde Bombshells". Ian McShane is excellent as a DJ and aficionado of soul music who becomes obsessed with the idea of re-uniting the members of a classic soul group, and the film follows his exploits as well as those of the group members; a cast which includes such genuine musical talent as Isaac Hayes, as well as acting stalwarts Taurean Blacque, Derrick O'Connor and Antonio Fargas. Not meant to be an epic by any means, this is nonetheless a chunk of solid gold.