cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.

My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like "ultra famous"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I just read on the internet that he was once a member of "Stomp" I guess there isn't anything he can't do. I saw "Stomp" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience, everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show!
The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a "horrible spirit" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.

Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.

If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.
Determine the sentiment:

Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.

American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.

It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie  he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex  but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When I first watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles.

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

negative
this is what confuses me about critics and their opinion. i usually do take in, what the critics say about a film, on most occasions before i see a movie.

however, i saw this one, without knowing anything about it. mainly because of the cast. kevin spacey and don cheadle are two of the most acclaimed and in my opinion best actors alive. and ryan gosling is on a fast escalating journey up there as well. his reality and humanity which he exudes in most of his portrayals, makes the audience truly believe in the character and whats happening to him.he's really my favourite actor of my generation. i've always found jena malone pretty cute,ever since donnie darko, and if she chooses to keep doing similar roles then heck i ain't complaining.

back to my point. this movie really moved me. i believed it. the acting was top class. as one would expect. the actually movie left the audience with the ultimate aim of a good movie; reflection and pondering which ensues after the final credits roll. i think i must watch it again to decipher how this movie was critically mauled. i know that their reviews must be taken with a pinch of salt. at least i know now.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Great "documentary" of how scientist's believed dinosaurs behaved, captured with some of the most spectacular CGI since "Jurassic Park". Done completely seriously, like a prehistoric episode of "Nation Geographic". Grabs your attention from the first frame and never lets go. My favorite part was when the Diplodocus fights off the Allosauros.

10 stars. This is what science is all about.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.

The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.

If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.

This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.

There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.

GO ON!! give it a go!
This is a really really bad movie. However It's good to laugh at the horrible ideas and "special" effects. The plot centers around an EU space agency that discovers a 10th planet that orbits directly opposite the Earth. They send a maned mission (they have been to Mars and have yet to discover this planet? Is anybody stupid enough to fall for this?) to the planet and can you believe it, it's the mirror image of the planet they came from. Most everything is predictable from that point. Honestly from the title of the movie you can guess just about everything. The only surprising thing here is a maned space program run by Eurpoeans :) There really can be no excuse for the plot concept or execution. So it's good for a laugh or maybe if you are in an altered state of consciousness.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Actually, I have more a question, than a comment. I loved Z-Boys, and The Lords of Dogtown. Saw Lords first, then the doc, and while I loved the story, I am curious as to why in the movie, Sid was an important character, but in the documentary, he wasn't part of the team, and only merely mentioned as just some kid they knew. Does anyone know the story on that? The story of these boys was amazing. I never experienced the skateboarding craze where I grew up, but my kids have enjoyed it. What I have seen in local skate parks is what these boys had invented. I never knew that. When the film showed the competition, and Z-Boys did their thing, they put to shame the others in competition.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.

Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.
Write a negative movie review.

It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Labeling this film a "lesbian love story" is about as accurate as calling Pride & Prejudice a "straight love story." There's just so much more to it than that.

Yes, the main character is a lesbian, but her story is classic bildungsroman, a journey from childhood to adulthood, from sexual innocence into maturity, from personal blindness to self- discovery. There is a stylistic element of camp to the film's direction, but it is not a hindrance; rather it serves to underscore the staged and dramatic parts of the main character's life.

Those who know Anna Chancellor from the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice will certainly be amazed with her here. Rachael Stirling is stellar as the main character Nan, and Keeley Hawes is all wide-eyed goodness as her lover Kitty Butler. Chancellor might have the stand out role, that is aside from Sally Hawkins who plays Zena Butler. This film is not for the faint of heart, but it's not a piece of pro-gay advertising either. It's a real story, with real comedy and drama, an engaging story with compelling characters, and well worth watching.
I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

From the start you will like Sam Elliott's character (Falon) : a trustworthy cop that is notably loyal to his partner. But too loyal, and too revengeful when seeing his partner dead in an alley, cause he then kills who he thought to be the assailant before giving him a chance to explain. Falon is an alcoholic, and that tends to sway him from being in self control, though he manages to direct his attention towards finding who's really behind his partners death. He carries along a rookie as his new partner (which seems to be seen too often in films) but Esai Morales does well in accompanying Sam Elliot, though puzzling pieces begin to fit to where Morales begins a self-approved investigation towards Falon; he mainly wants to find the answers since Fallon isn't letting him in on the whole story, and does not like what he finds. There is not a last minute showing at who the bad detectives are, which is okay; and they are not able to sway Falon into joining them, leading to a dramatic ending. Fine acting all the way around, with a touch of humor from Paul Sorvino who is the captain of detectives. It's a good movie that will make you want to see it several times; so it qualifies as a -must see-, and a good addition to a movie collection! (Filmed in San Francisco)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness.

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

positive
OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.

Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.

Yeah, whatever.

By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.

Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.

Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.
Wow. I watched One Night at McCool's yesterday, and all I can say is, "Wow."

Here I go. MAJOR SPOILERS.

Would you like a summary of the plot, just to see how stupid and pointless this movie is? I would never tell anybody to watch it, unless I was out to inflict pain upon them. Anyway, here's a glimpse (or a huge chunk) of the plot.

Randy works for a bar, McCool's. He meets up with this woman named Jewel who convinces him to, surprisingly, have sex with him. Her ex-boyfriend ends up trying to rob them and gets killed. Randy and his cousin and the detective at the scene of the crime all fall for Jewel. She, being the mascot of stupidity, uses every one of these guys to get what she wants, involving a DVD player. Randy hires a hit man to kill her, and eventually the detective is killed by the ex-boyfriend's psycho brother and the hit man and Jewel take off.

Seriously. That's it. I left hardly anything out, except for a few more sex scenes and a nearly-pornographic scene of Liv Tyler as Jewel using a hose to flaunt her sexuality.

What was the point of this movie? To be honest, I think it was so that the producers and directors could show off their male urges. Which I think is absolutely uncalled for and just plain stupid. When I watch a movie, I want a plot. I want characters. I don't care about sexy woman flaunting anything they might have. Something should happen in a movie, for goodness' sake. This is as bad as Fight Club.

It gets even worse. John Goodman is the detective devoted to the higher being. I myself wondered why Goodman would play in something so outrageously pitiful as this, but then I remembered that he was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? as well. His reputation just went down a notch.

Liv Tyler was an amazing actress in the Lord of the Rings series. In this movie she is nothing more than an unintelligent slut who wants nothing but her way. Her reputation has gone down seven or eight notches, to me.

I am amazed, simply AMAZED that people would work so hard to make something so stupid. The music is absolutely crappy (having "YMCA" play while John Goodman's character is being killed doesn't really fit), the characters are totally unlikeable, the plot is one of the most stupid ever conceived by man, and to top it off, it doesn't even fit into any genre. The closest it gets to is pornographic comedy. If it was even supposed to be funny. Which it wasn't.

I think I'm done ranting now. But let me just assure you that nobody in their right mind would ever, ever want to see this movie. Unless they lust for Liv Tyler as much as the characters do, that is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

One of the reviewers here wrote: "Good acting, good special effects, great

location. Even better ending. " All I can say is, "Ugh." This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the

"Christian content" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the "preachy" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the

screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get

amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on "Survivor," but that show

requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what

Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the

misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch "Christian" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's "Passion..." was. 2/10 stars.
Determine the sentiment:

For those curious, this episode is based in theme upon Pirandello's play, "Six Characters in Search of an Author" and Jean-Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit" (as indicated most obviously by its title), but, of course, with a Sterling twist. 

Five very different individuals find themselves in a round room with no idea who they are other than the indication of their attire. A bell intermittently rings (perhaps also a Hemmingway allusion?), increasing the agony of their incarceration. The newcomer to the group, a Major, is determined to escape, while the others are resigned to their fate. 

Unlike Pirandello, these characters don't even have a story. They have nothing other than the experience of the room in their consciousness, and no one to author their nonexistent story, so their position is even more hopeless than the characters in Pirandello's piece. Unlike both Pirandello and Sartre, there is no relationship involved between the characters and therefore no real conflict between them, though the theme of personal responsibility versus apathy is prominent in this story. 

Though this diverges significantly from the storyline of the authors alluded to in the title, themes of Sartre and Pirandello (and many other authors of the twentieth century) come through with absolute clarity. This is very obviously a piece which addresses post-modernist perspective in the context of the Cold War era. There is also an emphasis upon issues of personal insignificance. 

This is easily one of the best episodes I've seen, and still exceptionally relevant to current experience (as are Sartre and Pirandello). Exactly what makes a good piece of writing into a classic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Sadly, this movie is relegated to 'curio' status it seems. Many people that I've asked "Did you know the Monkees made a movie?" usually answer 'No.' That being said, if you are one of that large number, I recommend you see it, but with the following caveat(s): If you expect Monkey style humor, it is in there. It's just not all over the place like the TV shows.

Yes, they are trying to break their TV mold a bit by poking fun at it like a bunch of no-longer-teenagers who have been on the short end of a lot of sticks.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to enjoy it.

No, you don't have to be inebriated to understand it.

If you like classics, you'll love the interspersed clips throughout.

If you like the psychedelic era, you'll love some of the cameos.

If you are a Monkees fan, you might recognize some of the jabs they are taking at the heavy commercializing of the band.

In the nigh-immortal words of one of my best friends after seeing 5 minutes of it: "This is a weird movie, man." In fact it might be better if you don't try to understand it, just sit back and react to it. It's weird, it's funny, it's a bit surreal, it's experimental (still)...it is many things. Overall, it is an experience.
Determine the sentiment:

What can I say about the series dubbed the NEW OUTER LIMITS...Hmm.... Only that this was one of the best TV series ever assembled!! You have actors of all ages, The actors that are somewhat known and that time forgot. Everyone playing their part to exact perfection! These shows always have some type of moral story to them which most of the time (if not all the time) is very true! You can feel that the man whose voice is dubbed over the credits and in the beginning and ending believes what he is saying wholeheartedly! Not only do these shows have great story lines, they also throw you into them, get your mind racing, and your blood pumping. The original outer limits was a black and white in the 60's right, These shows made a triumphant comeback the likes of which I have never seen! The new twilight zone with Forest Whitaker was fun to watch, but the New OUTER LIMITS is where it's at! If you have not seen: I implore you to please check these episodes out, and you will see exactly what I mean! LONG LIVE THE NEW OUTER LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Honestly, how hard can it be to make a good remake? Obviously pretty hard! I was soooo excited to see this because I loved the original, and my friends go and see it and tell me it really sucks. Well, I finally see it and I was sooo disapointed. Ok, the shower scene was more realistic...that's why I gave it a 3. Otherwise, it did suck. Vince Vaughn does a terrible job playing Norman, he's just too dense or something. I don't know, it was just terrible. Don't see it!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Remnants of an ambushed Army unit hook up with a group of cowboys to fight their way through Indians on the warpath. Sounds like it could be an exciting western, but this one is dull, dull, dull. It moves like molasses, the action scenes are uninspired, the acting is pedestrian, the writing is flat, even the photography isn't very good. Eastwood, in a very early role, plays an ex-Confederate who doesn't like the idea of fighting on the same side as Yankees. That's about the only remotely interesting situation in the whole movie, but Eastwood wasn't experienced enough an actor to pull it off, and his character comes across as petulant rather than angry or embittered. A very ordinary western. Actually, a very less-than-ordinary western. Worth a look if you're a die-hard Eastwood fan and want to see him at the very beginning of his career. Otherwise, don't bother.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love

this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny

and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two

very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic

Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging

around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre

company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.

Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,

whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.

Really a must see.

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

positive
This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've seen a fair few films from the Far East recently.....some were excellent (Battle Royale, Infernal Affairs, the Eye), and some were not so great (Versus, The Triple Cross). Then there are ones like Uzumaki and Returner, which while flawed I still enjoyed.

The basic premise involves the mysterious and horrific effects that a growing obsession with spirals has upon a community. Sound silly? Yeah, thats what I was thought. Firstly, the good stuff. Direction was top notch, sure a bit over the top in places but never the less interesting and stylish. Secondly the story, was original and like other writers commented very lovelace-esq...it was interesting. What it reminded me most of however was early Cronenberg; films like Shivers and Videodrome.

The acting wasn't great, but not too horrible either. To be honest I was actually bored on a few occations....I felt the pacing especially initially was a little slow. My main problem was that it was too silly and funny to be true horror, and yet not so enough to be considered a comedy. *SPOILERS* below.

*SPOILERS* Some good scenes (washing machine =)) and I liked the final shot/voiceover. At first I thought it ended far too abruptly but about 20 seconds later I realised the meaning and liked the end. However, because of the lack of seriousness in the story, combined with over the top scenes such as the news report at the school ment that I did not care for the characters much in the end. The final scene which was perhaps supposed to be a little poignent, while in reality I couldn't really care for the girl or her boyfriend. *SPOILERS END*

So overall I kinda did like this film, but it frustrated me and I think there was real potential in addition to some good scenes. Couple of other points, the main girl is quite pretty and cute, and the song that plays at the end is good too. I rated it 7/10.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As I peruse through the hundreds of comments that loyal readers of the IMDB have posted on this film, I find it very interesting how few ,"middle of the road" comments there are. Everyone either loves it, or they hate it. Having seen Apocalypse Now approximately 30 times, and having recently dissected it on DVD (how did we ever live without those magical digital machines?????), I can say without hesitation that I am one of those who have a very special place in my heart for this film. "Why would you like a film that's so confusing?" ask many of my associates. The answer is this: Forget the war, forget the brutality....This is a classic story of society protecting itself from those that refuse to fall in line with the status quo. Brando represents the individual that has his own way of getting the job done. They (Big Brother) sent him out to do the job, he does it too well, without adhering to the accepted "standards" of death and destruction (Am I the only one who's troubled by the fact that we have 'standards' for death and destruction????), so they send the "Conformity Police" out to eliminate the individual. Hmmmmmm....Draw any parallels between this and things you see every day? With the deepest respect to Mr. Coppola, whom I believe is one of the best directors of all time, I think he transcended his original intent of the movie, and probably didn't even realize it until after the movie was released. The subtle sub-text that permeates the entire movie has way too much to it to have been planned and portrayed; instead, it seems to have 'grown' itself, like some wild flower in the middle of a vegetable garden. Again I must reiterate: I think FF Coppola did a bang-up job on this entire production, as did the cast and crew, but the sum of the movie exceeds the individual efforts ten-fold. So if you haven't seen the movie, rent it, watch it, then watch it again, and maybe a few more times, and look for all the generic parallels to everyday life. Only then make a judgment on the quality of the film. Those of you that have seen it, watch it again with the mindset previously described. I think you may just have a whole new appreciation for the film. Or maybe not! No matter whether you love it or hate it, be sure and give credit to Coppola for his masterful story-telling style!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The Salena Incident is by far the director, Dustin Rikert's, best film --- which isn't saying much. In his past films (and I use the term "films" loosely), the director takes ideas from Hollywood blockbusters and severely marginalizes them. The Salena Incident is no different. The movie is basically Con Air meets Aliens done with the semblance of your average film school production. The film is riddled with out-of-focus shots and plagued by special effects that would have trouble rivaling most high school computer animation classes. For example almost every on-screen explosion is the same fire effect matted over the screen.

The weak effects and production value are only compromised by a flawed plot and rocky dialogue. In a sentence, the story strings together like an exposition of overused Hollywood clichés. The movie begins with the worst CGI Alien ship ever made crashing into the worst CGI earth ever made and a team of army somethings going down to investigate. Next a bus of prison transports, carrying the worst of the worst from across the state, is overthrown by the prisoners with the help of their blonde girlfriends armed with silicon implants. The prisoners escape and run into the town of Salena where they encounter the aliens who... SHOCK... have escaped from an alien prison transport carrying the worst of the worst from across the galaxy. The prisoners, and their captive police armed with only guns and sad puns have to fight off the aliens and escape the town before the International Space Alliance *rolls eyes* bombs the city into oblivion.

The only real enjoyable parts of the movie are when the actors (who are clearly undermined by the script) are given the freedom to improvise and also when they fight off the smaller of the alien creatures in a flurry of gun fire. Other than that, the movie really isn't worth anyone's time let alone the plastic that the DVD is made out of. How awful was it? Let's just say the Secretary of Defense is about 90 years old, works in a room that is about as high tech 1950's real estate office and is wearing a Looney Tunes tie. Yes, if that wasn't clear enough before, THE MAN IN CHARGE OF THE PENTAGON IS WEARING A TIE WITH BUGS BUNNY AND THE ROAD RUNNER ON IT. The movie basically culminates (HAHAHahhaaa did I say culminates...) with the last remaining soldier running into the group of prisoners and guards and the new formed team fighting their way away from the vicious aliens --- which for some strange reason leads them straight back to the Alien ship? yeah...

The movie has heart but is riddled with horrible direction and even worse camera work. Someone seriously needed to slap the DP and tell him there is more to cinematography than repetitive, stagnant, chest-level shots. This movie really isn't worth renting (if it ever makes it that far) being that it's not as horribly bad as the last films made by the director which reduces the laugh-ability, but it's nowhere near watchable cinema.
There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A respectable royal rumble event

1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels

7.5/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....

2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH

7/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.

3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH

7.5/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.

4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH

6.5/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.

5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter.