cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I can't remember when I've seen a worse movie. The acting was overwrought, the dialog trite to the point of being painful to listen to, the special effects second-rate and the overall story laughable.

I've never wanted to walk out on a movie more, and if I'd been alone that's what I'd have done, about 30 minutes into it, and saved myself nearly ANOTHER TWO EXCRUCIATING HOURS of nausea-inducing dialog and a plot with more holes than a swiss cheese "the size of Texas." I just can't overemphasize what a miserable experience sitting through this collosal waste of perfectly good celluloid was.



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

negative
I gave this movie a four-star rating for a few reasons. First, I felt that this movie was definitely preaching and I hate that. Still, it's my own fault for watching a Christian movie in the first place.

My friend and I rented this movie because it sounded interesting. The back of the case said something along the lines of a spiritual battle, someone opening some sort of boundary that let demons into our world and the like. Something I am very interested in, indeed. This movie almost hit the target. It was more like on the edge of the target, more on the tree than the target itself...

The basic plot of this movie is two couples are abducted by a group of terrorists to be victim to experiments. However, because their experimental serum is derived from the research of a scientist who claimed to be able to bridge the gap between the physical and the spiritual realms, the men of the couples are now able to feel, smell, hear, and see the demons of the spiritual world. In that order. Apparently the sense of taste is not present in that realm.

This movie is very clichéd. They took the title seriously as the men, while chained to the beds, demand their women look behind them because there is something there.

Although a good effort for what it was, I think the special effects could have been done so much better. The demon scratching at the woman was, in a word, hilarious. The wife was obnoxious as hell and everyone in the room practically cheered when she died. We were all hoping she'd be beaten by the other woman with the chair, though.

The message is one that I don't care to comment on, other than I think the Christian filmmakers should have found a better medium for it.

And so I give it four stars because it is not the movie's fault I am not a Christian and don't like this type of message, and I got a kick out of making comments throughout. My friend and I watching this movie seemed to resemble an episode of MST3K.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.
Determine the sentiment:

The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!

First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.

And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.

But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!

And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).

So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The animal-eating (geek) scenes were not as bad as you would think. After having watched Mondo Cane and Mondo Magic, these scenes are average. The grossest one was when the guy ate the head off the mouse. But they were so fast and few that they didn't bother me.

Otherwise, the film was just sort of interesting. I always like hearing the silly voice-overs. They never sound like what you think the actor/actress would sound like in real life. I liked the bright colors worn by the princesses. The shots of weird looking bugs were cool too. The youngest princess looked REALLY young, almost 14 or something. The fight scenes were not as long and boring as most fight scenes, so that was good.

3/10.

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

negative
A wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carné and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of "uh-huh". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.
"Hey, I didn't order no cab!" "Yeah, well you got one..." What can I say about Hack...what a man among men. He was a heartened ex-cop turned cab driver with a heart of gold. If you were able to (and fortunately for America's TV viewers...one person per week was) penetrate the cold, hard surface of Hack's exterior, you got to see a caring man devoted to vigilante justice. The show was superb, I laughed, I cried, I smiled...all in the same episode. My arms would break out in goosebumps when our dear friend Hack would exit his cab in another dark alley...with nothing more than his fists...ready to avenge a wronged civilian. A smile would break out on my face when the screen showed me a criminal in a dark alley's facial expressions when the Taxi of Justice's headlights illuminated upon his face. Week after week I canceled my duties as president of the Klingon Association to bask in the warmth glow of Hack's brilliance. I have never seen a better show, and I mourned the loss of one of America's greatest treasures when the show was canceled. In other Hack-related news, I would like to announce to the world that my wife and I are expecting Hack Koen to come into the world in about three weeks.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring.
Easily one of the best shows ever made, & it just gets better with age.

For me , one of the chief reasons for this was the English adaptation done by David Weir.

A Japanese friend of mine once told me that the show in it's original language was more whimsical & less flat-out hilarious that the version we all know.

The fact that the show resonates so strongly for its non-Japanese fans is , I think, largely because of Mr Weir's inspired efforts & some winning voice-over work.

Well done, sir!

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

positive
This film is so bad. I mean, who commissions this stuff? And the costume designer deserves an award for making everyone look like they had just stepped out of 1983. A bloke puts a female wig on and fights....nuff said.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Not much to say other than it is simply a masterpiece. this film contains a myriad of messages that all should take to heart. especially- women do not squelch your man's dreams -honor them -that's why you loved him in the first place! Those who plan for death will live in the grave. Those who carpe diem will awaken those who live in fear. Even our Lord spoke of this when he chastised the the one who buried his talent in fear that he might make a mistake and displease the Master. Take a risk, get out of the boat and you will walk on water. Life is a journey that does not end in the grave but in our minds and souls.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.

Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following

-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?

-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?

-What the hell am I watching?

"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.

In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A sadly predictable, clichéd story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea.
This was by far one of the worst movies Sandra Bullock has starred in. Ben Affleck should stay behind the camera and continue writing scripts. This is definitely his forte and acting is not. I actually lasted 54 minutes into this movie before I was so bored with it I felt compelled to leave the theater. It's a bore from beginning to, well 54 minutes into the film anyway. The premise of "Guess what happened to me on the way to the ...." has been done over and over to death. Somehow there just doesn't seem to be anything funny, or romantic about people cheating on each other. Parents should be aware that this may not be a suitable film for your teenage children especially impressionable ones that may view Sandra as a hero. There is a scene where the writers/producers/directors thought it would be nice to show how "acceptable" it is to smoke a joint .... while driving .... and then have no consequences at all when caught. I'm no prude, and I smoked my share when I was younger but I guarantee you I won't take my teenagers to see it and they're solid A & B students. If you want to see a good Sandra Bullock movie, rent "The Net" or "Hope Floats" which I believe are two of her best works.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of the films that killed the "spaghetti" western. It not only loses something in the translation, it is a total chaotic mess of editing as well. Either chunks of it have been edited out and or re-edited for an English language version. In any case, it makes little or no sense, period. It makes the "Trinity" and the Eastwood "Man With No Name" films look like John Ford/John Wayne by comparison. Nothing in this film is original. Somewhere in there is a beginning, a middle, and (finally)an end. Except for the end, not everything is exactly in that order. Robert Wood seems personable enough. The rest of the cast, especially the women, should have made better career choices.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This was the greatest movie I have ever seen in my life, the action was great, and i was so scared, there was a lot of gore WHICH MADE It GREAT, i would see it 1,000 more times, and Paris Hilton, D*MN she fine in that movie. But anyway, i would recommend it to anybody, even kids(like me) Adults like it to. You would probably have nightmares at night though, but beside that, IT IS AWESOMe, I CANT STOP BRAGGING ABOUT IT. EVER SINE AUGEST WHEN I HEARD ABOUT IT I BRAGGED AND BRAGGED and in school i gave out flyer's saying may 6 house of wax see it. i got my whole school into it. But anyway, i would definitely saySEE IT may 6 house of wax, be there It be slayed.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The third film based on Charles Belden's play entitled "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (1933) targets generation X-tasy. Twin screenwriters, Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes, spend more time developing the main characters than other slasher movies--a promising start. Their condition guarantees an authentic point of view. The role of Paige (Paris Hilton) was not much of a stretch for the world's favorite heiress. She peruses "In Style," stripteases boys, chats on a cell, and frets over an ill-conceived pregnancy. Her regular routine has been altered beyond repair. Hilton reached the peak of her performance--not so hot--during the "1 Night in Paris" (2004) parody. While the pimp-my-ride is in motion, she zealously "looks for lip balm" in her boyfriend's (Robert Ri'chard) lap. Finally, the "actress" atones for using the "N" word on the sex tape. Director Jaume Collet-Serra molds his take on the twin thing contrary to the theme of the past. Each exhibited opposite characteristics back then, whereas a pair of either good or bad can come out the womb today. However, the latter does not rule out the former. Childbirth constitutes the luck of the draw. Spectators can hardly consider Vincent (Brian Van Holt) a contemporary Quasimodo. Granted, the recluses share some similarities such as artistry, disfigurement, submissiveness, and murder. Yet, one small variable between the two makes all the difference. Vincent is even uglier on the inside than he is on the out. Collet-Serra's "House of Wax" pays homage to actor Vincent Price from the first remake in 1953. The film leaves obvious van Gogh puns to the imagination of the audience. Still, the choice to split the antagonist in two eliminates a vibrant twist at the end. Professor Henry (Vincent Price) Jarrod's unmasking receives runner-up, but the most terrifying one in horror movie history belongs to Lon Chaney in "Phantom of the Opera" (1925). As far as the new contender is concerned, the aftermath of separation surgery downplays the effect. A surgeon should know operating on Siamese twins scars them--physically and psychologically. Their father needs to call a couple colleagues--Dr. Phil to consult and Dr. McNamara to nip/tuck. Despite what the trailers said, "Wax" is not forever. In fact, you can rid yourself of it by burning it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you are looking for a film that is quick witted and won't bore you then this is the place. It is fast paced and funny with some decent acting comeing from the characters. It is always hard for me to see Mark Walhberg as anything except Marky Mark. That image is burned in my mind forever. As an actor though he is pretty good. This movie is a must see for action fans who like to see a few little twists and turns. I will have to pick this movie up one day and buy it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Night hunter is a sold B style action movie. Get a life and grow up people. Don "the Dragon" Wilson is a kick boxer, (hall of fame) and not an actor. If your looking for an Oscar, it's not here brother. Looking for kick ass action movie with lower then low budget, this is it.The plot line may have been a little thin, but what B movie isn't. I understand everybody is a critic and how one man's junk is another man's treasure. Get real people, judging every movie like it is an Oscar contender, just silly. Awesome fight scenes, mixed with a new twist on vampire moves. See it if your a fan, rent something else if your a hater.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I especially liked the ending of this movie--I really felt what the characters must have felt, which I think is a mark of good directing. I was tickled with how the new hire at the record store turned out--great character development there, even though his "role" would probably be considered minor.

I was also impressed that the entire film, while dark in its subject matter, was free from gratuitous nudity, profanity, and violence. Sadness, sexuality, and darkness can all be communicated (often better) by what is left unsaid, but it seems that this is often unique to really "classy" films and actors. Kudos to the film-maker for that.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Thank God I was not operating any heavy machinery, it could have been an even worst disaster. Shots were slow & very repetitive. Different scenes, same shots, medium shot, medium shot, medium shot, snooze. Story line was rather empty. William Hurt was the worst. Where did he get that stupid accent from? Random shots of scenery just to include them really didn't add much. There were more shots of Arbour traveling in her car than anything else. The direction really didn't take us into any of the scenes & it also didn't make me feel for any of the characters. I would have rated it a zero if IMDb had the option. Great sedative if you can't sleep. There went 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've seen a few movies in my time, but this one is exceptional. You'll have to watch it more than once to truly appreciate it, it is emotionally very complex, it explores love and passion at it's most extreme and it's cinematography is just breathtaking. The character of the Count is intensely passionate and tragic without him having to raise his voice or indeed leave his bed, the film is perfectly cast and perfectly acted. The film has a sort of mathematical precision and perfection to it which is rare these days. It combines action, love, tragedy, drama and politics all in one. This movie is unmissable, all the hype surrounding it and all the awards cannot begin to do it any justice. Hats off to Michael Ondaatje for writing the incredible book on which it is based.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW

The Long Kiss Goodnight is yet another prime example of a common affliction of many modern films; it starts off on a very interesting concept - a trained assassin whose memory was erased regains consciousness of herself - and the initial setup is engaging but then it seems the writers don't know very well where to go next and the whole thing trails off down increasingly confusing and/or inane paths, leaving the disappointing taste of something that was OK but promised to be a lot better. The baddies are remarkably unremarkable, and even Jackson's comic sidekick turn seems more like something from his pre-Pulp Fiction days; it looks like Harlin, as in Cutthroat Island, made every effort so that no-one would upstage his then wife. Her character is by far the best of the film and this fact only makes you feel even more frustrated that they weren't able to do something better with it.

However, there is still something about this film which for me sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill hollywood actioner and places it above average, if only just. It is something very subtle I can't quite put my finger on; it's a disturbing, cold, dark, even sickly edge, a nightmarish and unreal feel, a decadent air, a mean streak, which keeps cropping up in various ways. It's in the dark reddish photography and almost permanent night the characters dwell in, it's in Samantha's dreams in front of the mirror, it's in her vicious eyes and smile whenever she's about to kill a man or when she announces how she will enjoy watching her nemesis die with her daughter listening, it's in Mitch's comeback at the wheel of a car while he is spurting so much blood from his mouth he can hardly speak... I don't know, it's an atmosphere, something I can't define but which gives me the creeps (a bit) and which makes this film still oddly intriguing for me.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

OMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.

The "plot" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.

I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I don't know what it is exactly, but the film is happily sitting on my shelf, with no thought of ever leaving me...Fulci has crafted one of the most ridiculous, bizzare, cheez-infested and well unique movies I've ever seen. Not sure what else to say about it, but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! The steak tartar scene is absolutely uproarious, and the whole nazi torture orgy fiasco is strangely hilarious...I'm not sure what Fulci was trying to do, but has anyone heard that, based on this film, Fulci accused Wes Craven of ripping him off with "Scream"? "Cat in the Brain" is a must for bad movie lovers everywhere...Yes I'll definitely say it's not a "good" film, but I guarantee certain scenes will stick in your mind forever! This is an exercise in craziness, people...I guess if I were a "serious" critic I'd give it a 3, but on sheer enjoyability (again I can't really explain my affections) I'd give it a 7....Really whacked out flick...
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 

Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).

The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.

This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.

This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.
This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This bright hilarious English comedy about school girl antics is a neglected gem. The significant question is where is the audience? The film is rated 10 by most voters, but how many voters is that? They don't make comedies like this anymore because the films don't get distributed or seen. I would never miss a chance to see this old art house classic again. But where are the art houses?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
All i can say is that, i was expecting a wick movie and "Blurred" surprised me on the positive way. Very nice teenager movie. All this kinds of situations are normal on school life so all i can say is that all this reminded me my school times and sometimes it's good to watch this kind of movies, because entertain us and travel us back to those golden years, when we were young. As well, lead us to think better in the way we must understand our children, because in the past we were just like they want to be in the present time.Try this movie and you will be very pleased.At the same time you will have the guarantee that your time have not been wasted.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.

Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).

I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.

Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.
Yes. Watch this movie if you like brave films. This is maybe the best Mexican picture since Midaq Alley just because the excellent cast, the outrageous direction and a sublime soundtrack. Many people did not like 'Cronica', they think it's very aggressive but they didn't understand that it was just a representation with hyper realism of the Mexican society but so similar to all the third world families. I hope that Benjamin Cann and Bruno Bichir (who in this movie gives another example of his greatness as an actor) soon get together again with a new film. Just Remember how Los Olvidados (Luis Buñuel) was misunderstood when released, but now we consider one of the best movies of all times. Please, prepare yourself and watch this film.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a great Valentine's Day gift. A gorgeous guy and a pretty girl fall in love while trying to beat the competition at a baking contest. Very romantic. I'm a real fan of Costas Mandylor since his days at Picket Fences and he hasn't lost his appeal. Lauren Holly is still lovely and adorable and the two still have great chemistry together. The supporting cast was good as well. Seeing all those wonderful desserts being made was a delicious sight in itself. I loved that Costas and Lauren teamed up to win in the baking competition and in love. This is the kind of film that satifies all palates, romantic and otherwise. Hallmark always shows excellence in their programming and this is no exception. The whole family can view this film. Also shows that sometimes love triumphs over any adversity. I found myself sighing and wishing for more for this film and also yearning for those wonderful desserts. I recommend this film highly for all ages. A great treat for all.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both. 

Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES! 

Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage. 

What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.
Determine the sentiment:

There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever

I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.

Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.

Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Adam Sandler's movies are my favorite comedies. The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite horror movie. The Matrix is my favorite sci-fi movie. Anywhere But Here is my favorite drama.

Perhaps the single most valuable asset that this movie has is it's acting.

Susan Sarandon is absolutely amazing. By the end of this movie I felt as if I knew her character better than I knew myself. She did a simply amazing job.

Natalie Portman also did a great job. I recently rented her first movie, Leon (1994), in which she played a 12 year old girl. I believe that she is a contradiction in terms; she was a good kid actress. Well, 5 years later she is still just as good an actress. In fact, she's much better.

Not only did Sarandon and Portman portray their characters well, but they also worked perfectly together. I mean, even now I can hardly believe that they are not actually mother and daughter in real life as well as in this movie.

This movie is about a 14 year old girl (Portman) and her restless mother (Sarandon) that leave their home town in Wisconsin for Beverly Hills.

At first Portman hates her mother for taking her away from her cousin and friends, and the two begin a very tumultuous relationship that goes up and down over the course of a couple years (usually down, might I add).

Although this explanation is a little vague, the plot can only be summarized vaguely. But when you see this movie you will see that the plot really is not so vague or weak, for it is actually very deep. What I am saying is that the plot is outlined weakly, but then they focus in on it to make it strong.

And it is very strong, but also the plot sequencing is great. And there are a few brilliant scenes that I hope will someday be seen as "classic".

I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried. And although, admittedly, there are a few loopholes, it's still a stellar movie and it really comes together in the end.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!

stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.

murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.

i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The cover of the VHS says it all: "Without doubt, the most powerful movie of its kind since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I'm a huge fan of 70's and 80's slashers and I have to say, I agree 100 %. The characters are believable, the actors have an excellent charm (especially George Kennedy as the forest-ranger). There's the twisted atmosphere, that only TCM has, an astounding soundtrack to reflect the emotions and the filming locations that are the most beautiful in the history of horror. This has to be one of the most beautifully shot horror films of all time! Jeff Lieberman as a director of this 1981 low budget film does and excellent job and with his other works (Blue Sunshine, Wrong Turn) added, he must be one of the most underrated directors in the filmindustry today.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Seriously, I don´t really get why people here are bashing it. I mean,

the idea of a killer snowman wreaking havoc on a tropical island paradise is pretty absurd. The good news is, the producers realized it and made it a comedy in the vein of Army of Darkness. 

Especially in the second half of the film, when the little killer snowballs attack, I laughed my ass off. For example, the put one of the little creeps into a blender (a la Gremlins 1) and mix it. After that, it morphs back into a snowball and squeals with a high pitched voice "That was fun!".

Bottom line - incredible movie, rent it.