cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)

and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film. 

...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.

Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.

The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.

And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.

The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.

Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...
typically, a movie can have factors like "arousing", "good feel", "sense of purpose", "plot", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies, its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my collection. 'Tale of two sisters", as they call it when it was released in my country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are "The Others", "The Haunting", "The haunting of Hell House". this movie will be a another great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara, Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse. the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film, in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD.

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

positive
I first saw this movie in the night program of one of my favourite TV channels.... I was hooked from the very first minute. Nothing is as it first seems, lots of suspense, great acting from Mr. van Dien, and I did not mind the "heat" in it one bit ;-) ... and, best of all: You are in for a surprise ending!!!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisché punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy. 

The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?

AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks? 

I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Both Disney and Bill Paxton did a fine job in conveying a story that is based in fact. You do not have to like the game of golf to appreciate the story of one man's struggle to overcome the odds. It could have been based on any sport or simply on any other situation which involves competition, though this one just happens to be related to Golf. The only problem I have with the story is that I would have liked to see a bit deeper into each of the main characters, esp. Mr. Ouimet. Mr. Francis Ouimet is a typical young man of his times, turn of the century America, where "class lines" are well delineated and woe be it to anyone who deigns to try to rise above his "class" standing. I did a bit of historical research and my biggest question was indeed answered, to my satisfaction. Although the circumstances are a bit different than those portrayed in the film, I came away with a feeling of content. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I believe you will too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
His John Dark-Kevin Connor fantasy adventures were a mainstay of Summer holiday movies in the days before Star Wars: they weren't masterpieces, they didn't boast state-of-the-art special effects, but they were exactly what an audience of kids wanted from a film back in the mid 70s.

At the Earth's Core catches just the right tone for the appropriately named Burroughs' pulp adventure about Victorian inventor Peter Cushing and the inevitable Doug McClure ending up in the underground world of Pelucidar and battling its evil telepathic fighting dinosaurs. This time the puppets are gone in favour of men in monster suits, which is a lot more fun if you're willing to suspend your disbelief, and if you're not there's always Caroline Munro's cleavage to look at. Aside from what may well be Peter Cushing's worst performance, an irritating but dottier rehash of his movie Dr Who ("You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!"), it's easily the best of the John Dark-Kevin Connor-Doug McClure fantasy adventures, surprisingly well directed and boasting an atmospheric use of colour. Never especially good at exterior scenes, Alan Hume's photography gains immensely from the control a studio set gives him (the film was shot entirely on soundstages) to paint a luridly vivid world worthy of a pulp novel cover. Not high art but definitely great Saturday matinée fun.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A group of tourists are stranded on Snake Island after an unfortunate accident with their boat. They are forced to spend the night and as you probably suspected, it isn't called Snake Island because it's just soooooo much fun to say - it has a history of people disappearing one by one because of the large snake population, which is just what happens with these poor dumb souls. This is a very boring and typical movie with tons of off screen snake attacks and lousy performances from NOBODY actors. The only somewhat entertaining scene was an absolutely unnecessary and forced strip scene which ain't anything couldn't see in a PG13 rated movie, folks. If you are into snake movies than check out SSSSSSS, but don't torture yourself with this crap.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This story of a teacher who has a relationship with a student is told in a subtle manner, something which sets it apart from most films with this plot. Mr. Lam (Jacky Cheung) has a relationship with Choy (Karena Lam, who was also so good in "Koma") in what at first appears to be an inexplicable situation. He is married for 20 years to Ching (the great Anita Mui, in her last role before she was cruelly taken from us), and it appears to be a loving relationship. When Ching offers to care for hers and Mr. Lam's former teacher, Choy and Mr. Lam have the opportunity to be together. What makes the film so good is director Ann Hui's pacing. It takes a while to uncover the secrets of the Lamsm and it all makes sense. The movie is very dramatic and touching. You don't feel any repulsion about the teacher/student situation, something that elevates this film above many with the same plot. It is slow moving, but stay with it. Also, revel in Ms. Mui's wonderful, unglamorous but beautiful performance. She was and is someone truly special and in this film you fall in love with her one last time. It is worth the time to witness and just be there with her.

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

positive
I've read other hacks' reviews of this movie, and while it certainly isn't the best movie ever made in the sci-fi / horror genre, it isn't THAT bad if you accept it for what it is - low-budget, b-movie fare that (shall we say) "borrows heavily" from the likes of 'Alien' (nasty extraterrestrial monster that cocoons its victims) 'Species' (gorgeous and confused "space girl") and 'Incubus' (the beastie-breeding-with-captive-girls angle). This is one seriously cheesy movie, and the whole thing was obviously done on a shoestring budget, although the alien isn't too bad (I've seen far less convincing men-in-rubber-suits at any rate). None of the acting is Oscar material and the Isle Of Man doesn't really double for Boston Massachussetts very convincingly. The plot is fairly predictable too and the premise that an alien craft would travel squillions of miles and crash land smack bang in the middle of an all-girls college campus - thus conveniently providing a rich source of perfect breeding victims - is utterly laughable. However, the movie does have its suspenseful moments, there's a few helpings of nudity and semi-nudity and the film does feature one of the few movie appearances by the beautiful and tragic model / actress Kadamba Simmons (as the "Space Girl") who, at the age of only 24, was murdered in London by her jealous boyfriend shortly after making this film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Although, this episode was offensive to the Tourette Syndrome Association, others thought it was funny, while others thought it was a bad way to start the new season.

This episode was funny and just shocking. South Park has made history as being their first episode with the most cuss words, unless you count the movie as an episode.

I enjoyed how they made fun of Chris Hansen and his television show, to Catch a Predator. I didn't like the idea on how they thought Chris Hansen would do a show on tourettes and let a boy speak out and bash the Jews.

One thing I did not like is how South Park thought that people with tourettes syndrome would just blurt out bad language like that. I've seen people on television with Tourettes syndrome and they do not just blurt out bad words. Unless I am incorrect.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.

#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character named

the good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gore

i don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.
Yes, my summary just about tells it all.

If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and "cool" at the same time.

The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, "Cody" was funny one time or another, but unlike other "stupid characters(tm)" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a "duude" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.

The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they "love" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.

And: There's always a "tender spot" like that squeezed into the "action", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.

So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What can I say about this movie that has not been said by all the other comments here, they pretty much sum up everything, the people who love it cherish it, the people who hate it... well, they loathe it. This is the movie equivalent of Marmite.

I personally have committed every second of it to memory, it is cyclical, claustrophobic, introspective, magical and stands as being one of the most unique films ever made. Despite what many have stated, I believe this truly is a cult movie, it is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered, once unearthed it's fantastical psychedelic visuals and incredible soundtrack will be unforgettable, which is an achievement in itself. One of my friends who watched it likened it more to a musical, and in many respects to those who do not fully appreciate the context in which this film is made, would probably get more out of it to view Head as such.

I was always fond of the Monkees, especially the T.V. show back when it was repeated during the 80's. My mum had recorded Head for me when it was shown on T.V. late night, as she knew I liked them, I watched it a day later and it lodged in my memory until I was able to find a copy on DVD about 2 decades later, what I would love now is a special edition, it would be fascinating to get a greater insight into the making of this masterpiece. We can only hope.

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

positive
This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first. 

I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance. 

This would not even be good as a made for TV flick. 

Ouch!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie on TV back in the 60s and it still stands up well even after brilliant performances as a DI by R. Lee Ermey, Lou Gossett and even Frank Sutton (in a comic vein) on Gomer Pyle USMC. I wasn't in the service but my brother had a recording of a Drill Instructor in the Air Force and it was scary. Others in the family who were Marines told me that Ermey and even Sutton were pretty spot on in their roles. The only thing missing in "The D. I." is the language. In 1958 they couldn't yet use profanity on film, yet Jack Webb came across pretty damned tough without it. I think it's his best role ever. In Dragnet he was quite stiff I'll admit, though not as bad as George Raft, but he used it only to effect in "The D. I." You never forget the funeral for the dead flea! The romantic part was just to stretch the movie, but didn't really interfere with the basic plot. Don Dubbins was pretty good to but he never surpassed this film in his career. As far as patriotism, Jack Webb was TV's John Wayne. He carried it a bit too far in some Dragnet episodes, but not in "The D. I." After 40 some years I hoped the film could stand up to the likes "Full Metal Jacket" and others; and it did!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A lot of actors have a multitude of good movie roles in their soul. Some, a handful. Others, maybe a couple.

Then there's Linda Blair. "The Exorcist". That's it.

When you see "Chained Heat" and watch Linda Blair in it, you have to wonder what, if anything, was running through her mind.

Certainly not, "Oh boy: Oscar for Best Actress, here I come!"

Just another women in prison film like they used to make for the cheap in the '70s, this one actually has names you may recognize. John Vernon plays the dean... I mean, the warden (with a hot tub in his office; wonder what he told the contractor?), Stella Stevens pops up, even Henry Silva and Louisa Moritz show how bad they needed the work.

And special mention, of course, for our heroine Sybil Danning as a bisexual prisoner who puts the moves on poor Blair. To paraphrase, Sybil is as Sybil does and everything Sybil does is done perfect. Makes you forget what a terrible movie you're watching.

Almost.

Two stars. One for Sybil and another for trying to pass off Linda Blair as a sex symbol. Whatever could have possessed them (get it?)?
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.

While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.

Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.

The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! 

Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

"What symbolism!" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. "Northfork" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.

Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for "The Untouchables," have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.

But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.

Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for "lakefront" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly. 

The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.

4/10.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.

This is a charming film. The songs, including "Everybody Wants to be a Cat", are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10/10.
What's an example of a movie review?

Asterix and the Vikings is the first animated asterix movie in over 12 years since the 1994 "Asterix conquers America". It also has the honor of being the first digitally colored asterix animation, which makes the largely entertaining story a lot more breathtaking to behold.

Every scene of this movie is vividly rendered in bright cheerful hues adhering closely to the color schemes of the comic books it was based on. The character designs also stick relatively close to the comic, for better or for worse, preserving the simple but unique look of the characters. Being simple in terms of character design, this allows for more time and effort to be spent on the actual animation, which by the way surpasses many other big screen theatrical animated movies. Character movements are very fluid and possess a quality that looks way beyond what a modest budget would usually produce; there is always something moving in every scene and no evidence of the usual cost cutting animation short cuts. 3D computer images are incorporated seamlessly with the traditionally animated 2D art. If anything, the style of shading makes the 3D elements look more like traditional comic book paintings than CGI models.

The storyline takes much of its elements from the "Asterix and the Normans" comic, and this is where its main flaw lies. As an adaptation of said comic, "Asterix and the Vikings" takes way too many liberties with its source material. Long time fans of the comic would no doubt find much to dislike about the movie's story and its lack of adherence to the source.

On the other hand, one can see this story as a really fun one if taken on its own without comparing it its source material. Highly comedic, well written jokes pepper the upbeat script. The funniest parts were the numerous pop culture references and jibes at modern day 21 century life. Mobile communications, the shopping channel, commercial airlines and even sports cars are spoofed to great effect. Excellent chemistry and acting by the cast (I watched this in English by the way) though a couple of voices like Cacofonix I found really irritating (but I guess it is all part of his character).

If there is anything to criticize about the story, it is the lack of "asterix". This story seems to be more like Justforkix's story of teenage romance and "coming of age" with Asterix and Obelix merely playing supporting roles. This gives a pretty big sense of staleness since much of the story's elements are the usual staples of such teen movies. Derivative and clichéd at times, only the witty comedy and traditional "Astrix" elements (the Romans, the pirates etc) manage to save this film from falling into plain mediocrity.

While not the best installment in the Asterix animated movie library, it is certainly one of the funniest, the best scripted and the most beautifully animated. DVD seems a little hard to come by though
Determine the sentiment:

Reading some of the other comments, I must agree that some of the (very few) shortcomings found in this brilliant documentary about one of the 20th century's divas (up there with Billie Holliday, Bessie Smith, Edith Piaf, Judy Garland and Mercedes de Sosa) are justified. Because initially this was a 6-hours-plus TV documentary about her career("ESTRANHA FORMA DE VIDA" (V) 1995/1999). Far more encompassing and with greater insight into Amália's inner world. As for the subtitling her songs, I'm all for it! Though the music, the voice and the performance may be - are! - universal, there is so much poetry in the words just begging to be translated. I think this was a conscious choice by the producers. They were aiming at the 200 million Portuguese speakers in Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, France, East Timor, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Canada, the US, South Africa, St. Tome and Principe, Goa, Daman, Diu, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Germany and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking diaspora worldwide. As for the Lady herself, she did not live to see this particular shortened DVD version of the documentary, but she was given a preview of "Estranha Forma de Vida". And it seems to have been to her liking. Very much so.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Wow. What can I say? I was born in 1960. I love bad TV movies. Love them. I get involved. The works. I want to get involved. I'm spending time watching the thing. I watched the emmys last night on TV. How in the infinite world was the Empire Falls (excellent name)TV movie up for any awards? It truly had wonderful talent. Of course. And they tried admirably. But how can ANYONE pretend that was an OK (tv for goodness sakes) screenplay? OK direction? You know, I wish everyone the best. Really. But I thought it was totally mind-bending that Hollywood was placing this very very bad film up for so many honors. Awards? For me it was sort of a wake-up call that Hollywood is such a small insular community. Being cynical is not really my thing. But wow. --xptyngi
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Incredibly hilarious mid-70's Italian Rootsploitation with lots of non-consensual S&M, lesbian sex, gratuitous racial cruelty etc...Few redeeming cinematic qualities, except for the fairly cool theme music with dubby "African" drums and flute. Brilliant sample dialog: 

White Slave Owner (to White Plantation Manager): "You're so dumb, I'll bet you forgot to interrogate that n****r midwife!"

White Plantation Manager: "Not only did I interrogate her, I did it so well she died before I could get any answers from her!"

All the black actors have 70's afros, and say "yes, massa" in a high-pitched voice. The female lead has sex with everybody on the plantation. 10 Stars for fans of tasteless sleaze.

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

positive
Gene Roddenberry never let his fans down. His death ended Sci-Fi legacy that will never be matched. Earth: The Final Conflict was proof! His pilot film and the first 2 Seasons were well written and meticulously produced, but somewhere along the way the Roddenberry touch was lost. The loss of lead, Kevin Kilner (William Boone) definitely hurt the series as he was a vital part of what made it work. The story involves the human race being visited by the Taelons, an extra-terrestrial race who dub themselves 'The Companions'. After 3 years they have given earth new technologies, helpful information about the Universe and more. Many question their intentions here on Earth. The main liaison on Earth between the races is Da'an (Leni Parker) and he is to many, the most trustworthy Taelon. Questions arise: just why are they here? what are their goals, is Da'an aware of any suspected plots against the humans? There is an underground group led by millionaire industrialist Jonathan Doors (David Hemblen) who utilizes his millions to investigate the Taelons. By the end of the First Season things are going well, Da'an seems trustworthy, Boone assists Doors in his investigation while working with Da'an and the Taelons as a liaison. In the middle of the 2nd Season things start unraveling and the once terrific and fascinating series spirals downward, mostly because Roddenberry had died and was not around to guide the producers, of whom his wife Majel Barrett-Roddenberry was co-producer. Still, the first Season remains intriguing and fun to watch.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do. 

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me. 

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).

One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.
This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of "we're just a bunch of wacky guys" in the midst of the "my goodness this can be really dangerous" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.

Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film was made soon enough after Karen's passing that perhaps Richard Carpenter and the people closest to Karen were feeling a little guilty as to how they may have contributed to her health problems. As the years have passed (almost 25 to be exact) it must have gotten easier to deny any complicity. Richard has spent the years after Karen's death endlessly remixing and recompiling the recordings he made with her. He married his cousin, Mary, and from what I have read, it looks like he may be planning a next generation Carpenters with his children. He seems to have regretted making this film,and that may very well be why it is unavailable in any form. It seemed to me to be a fairly honest assessment of the tragically short life and incredible talent that was Karen Carpenter.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.
What's an example of a movie review?

Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.
This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Many experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors. Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The recent release of "Mad Dog Morgan" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. "Mad Dog Morgan" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is "Mad Dog Morgan" that comes to mind.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I did something a little daring tonight when I watched this movie. I attempted to wean myself from silent movie scores. Sure, when this film originally was distributed, a piano score was probably played with it. Oftentimes, the director would choose the score himself (Charlie Chaplin often composed the scores of his later silent films). But most of the music you hear on VHS tapes over silent films is in no way the same music that was supposed to be played when the film was first released. And, then again, there were plenty of silent films that were played without a score. I do not know the history of Potemkin's score, so I decided to watch it for the medium this piece of art was produced within - film. 

Soon after I turned the music off, unaided (or should I say unimpeded) by the musical interpretation of the emotions on screen, I became utterly attached to the film. Visually, it is easily one of the most stunning of all films. Eisenstein was a master of composition. The editing, possibly the cinematic technique Eisenstein is most famous for (montage), is extraordinary. The mood of this film is anger, and it stirred my passions violently. 

It takes a lot of effort to enjoy a silent film, especially a drama, but films like Battleship Potemkin prove that this effort is entirely worth it. Come on! You owe it to yourself to watch this film! Your education is incomplete without it.
What's an example of a movie review?

My Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.

The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clichés haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.

When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.

Rating: * out of 5.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it. 

John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.

Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.

So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun.