cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a positive movie review.

Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching. 

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.
What's an example of a movie review?

With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.

The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.

What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.

Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.

3/10
This is an excellent movie. There were several parts to the movie I liked. This movie is very funny! Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc. I highly recommend these for family movies. All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie? In my opinion there are actually 2 Ernest Goes to Camp and Ernest Goes to Jail. So if you have never seen Ernest P. Worrell its time to go and see him. You will find him quite satisfactory "no what I mean"?

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

positive
This film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I just caught this on Showtime...ewwwwwww, not even fun in a bad movie kind of way. One of the lamest monster flicks I've ever seen. Plus the TV reporter in the movie was that annoying Jerri from a past season of Survivor. The only amusing thing was that the "secret base" was the house from Fantasy Island (and a million other movies and TV shows; the place is located in the L.A. area). I fully expected Mr Roarke and Tattoo to come out and greet the visitors. If Tattoo had gotten eaten by the snake, I might have given this movie a 2, but oh well. Watching people stand there and scream for five minutes while the Komodo or the cobra loomed over them instead of making a run for it was pretty funny, especially because you could really tell that they were just screaming at an empty spot where the computer animators would later paint in the monster. I nearly fell out of my chair, though, when in a flashback scene they brought in either the cobra or the komodo - then normal size - in some indestructible solid steel container with some air holes drilled into it. Wouldn't a wire cage have sufficed? LOL! Guess they couldn't afford to rent a real komodo and cobra. I have to remember I rent Showtime for their series and not their movies.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.
I first saw this movie about 3 years ago. I was shocked at how stupid the FBI was not to prevent such a tragedy. It could have been easily prevented. This movie was just unbelievable.

Now seeing it after September 11th, I am appalled and can say that this could have been prevented more easily that most people would want to know.

This film is 100% true

In the final scene of the film, when the mastermind of the 1st attack is being taken to prison by helicopter and flies over the towers, he makes a spine chilling remark, that was laughed at when he said it. "Next time we'll bring them *BOTH* down." This was actually said by Ramzi Yousef after his arrest.

This movie reveals the shocking truth about how the first attacks were carried out right under the noses of the FBI and NYPD. It shows how the 1st and 4th Amendments are partially to blame for the attacks.

I watch this movie now and know that both attacks could have been prevented.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a semi fictional memoir of an "international man" who have witnessed various political upheavals in recent 30 years.

I was hoping that this film would offer unique insight into politics and war. I was also hoping that it would be touching and affecting. However, I was disappointed by this film. "Chico" seemed fragmentary, with the main character, Ricardo, staying in one country for 10 to 20 minutes. As could be expected, no detailed storyline could be elaborated in such time frame. The excuses of him moving to another place were often perfunctorily explained. The result was a disappointing collection of fragmented clips shot in various countries.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is the type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!

Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.

Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.

All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!

I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.

If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD!
Determine the sentiment:

Before I speak my piece, I would like to make a few things clear: 1)I am a chick who's not into chick flicks ("Kate&Leopold" and "Someone Like You" are EXTREME exceptions- Hugh Jackman's ass). 2)I only picked this one up because I am a Fichtner fangirl who looked forward to see him in a bathtub. 3)I am not a Demi fan, though I think her performances in "Immortal" and "A Few Good Men" were sublime and have earned places in my vid library- also I think she's a little crazy (no way is she NOT still sleeping w/Brucie).

If this is a character study of an unfulfilled woman living dual lives of independence and happiness, then I'd say we have one narcoleptic melodrama. Marty: Literary agent. Makes 6-figure salary. Lives in an upscale Manhattan penthouse. Easy for her to read several hundred manuscripts and fall asleep at her desk for some highly suggested nocturnal escapism. Or perhaps stepping through an interdiemsional portal? She has the career, the looks, a cool car, a great pad, now where are the man and kids? In steps our boy Aaron- some real escapism. What are architects? They're artists who can do math, dreamers that make real money. Aaron gives Marty the dream of security and fills a void where she, obviously has no self confidence.

On the other side of the coin, there's Marie, still living out her schoolgirl fantasies while she muddles through motherhood. Her children are her career and life. But what about Marie, does she only exist through her children? In waltzes William, a Parisian stranger who helps her focus on the one thing she has lost touch with: herself.

A supposed journey of self-discovery and late a coming of age thrown in some with angst and some resentment to Marty/Marie's own mother. This gets a 3/10. All I could say is thank God for the BPL multimedia division, I wouldn't waste my $2.99 at Blockbuster on this, put it toward a Harlequin Blaze title.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!

1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm starting to wonder, after reading some of the opinions here, if I watched the same film as the other reviewers but after checking my facts I am forced to the sad conclusion that I have.

This witless wannabee screwball comedy has to be one of the the longest 94 minutes I have spent, and one of the most unfunny things I have seen, for ages. Now don't get me wrong, I love screwball comedies, but this boring, set-bound drivel falls so far short of the dizzy heights of Preston Sturges and Howards Hawks that it doesn't deserve (to mix my metaphors) to be thought of in the same breath as those greats. Writer / Director Charles Martin's dialogue is neither witty, subtle or interesting - and there's so much of it. He doesn't know how to end a scene either, with some ruthless cutting, especially of people exiting rooms and saying goodbye to each other, the pace of film would have been lifted and then the fact that the limited number of characters are doing stupid and motiveless things for no other reason than this is supposed to be a comedy would have been a little less obvious. Characters in this movie fall in and out of love with each other, and move in and out of apartments, at a moment's notice only to move what little plot there is forward. One moment people are desperately yearning for one person, the next they are getting married to someone else - having wooed and been wooed off screen so we know nothing about it until one of the characters tells us - "Oh, they're getting married!" (usually after someone has made a faux-pas or jumped to the wrong conclusion). If we had known that these two characters were in love or supposed to be engaged before hand we, the audience, might have enjoyed the experience of watching someone making a fool of themselves in front of them. As it is the characters just come over looking like selfish, petulant idiots and we have no sympathy for any of them.

The sets are limited and the action confined to them in a way that makes the whole thing look like a badly filmed stage play. The only moments of relief from the tedium are Keenan Wynn who looks like he has wandered in from a different movie and has decided to hang around and be slightly funnier than all the unfunny stuff going on around him.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As a veteran screen writing instructor at Richland College in Dallas and a former MGM screenwriter back in the days of decent films, I am thrilled to have accidentally clicked on Channel 33 in Dallas tonight and watched this enchanting film in which Betty White is GORGEOUS and makes one yearn for the good old days of truly good movies before Hollywood started banging out all this crap for the teenagers. If a producer is listening, I'd like to state that there are enough of us over 60's who will happily pay a buck to see a movie that has no guns, no killing, no special effects, no sex and violence and just a good touching tale of human relationships that leaves you with a good warm feeling, as this film did for me.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

BLACK WATER is a thriller that manages to completely transcend it's limitations (it's an indie flick) by continually subverting expectations to emerge as an intense experience.

In the tradition of all good animal centered thrillers ie Jaws, The Edge, the original Cat People, the directors know that restraint and what isn't shown are the best ways to pack a punch. The performances are real and gripping, the crocdodile is extremely well done, indeed if the Black Water website is to be believed that's because they used real crocs and the swamp location is fabulous.

If you are after a B-grade gore fest croc romp forget Black Water but if you want a clever, suspenseful ride that will have you fearing the water and wondering what the hell would I do if i was up that tree then it's a must see.
Write a positive movie review.

I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to give it.

Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no conscience.

This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.

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

positive
Michael Allred's comic book stories, particularly his work on Madman, usually are a great deal of fun. "Astroesque," Allred's no-budget indy film, is the opposite of fun.

Worst acting ever coupled with truly horrible dialog makes for a brutal cinematic experience. Pretty certain Allred understands WTF's going on, but he's the only one. Daring you to watch the entire mess isn't enough...defying you to watch the entire mess is more on target.

"Astroesque" is some kind of movie tie-in to Allred's "Red Rocket 7" comic book, which, ironically, is mostly unreadable. So if your "Astroesque" experience isn't terrible enough definitely track down the over-sized comics and continue the fun.

Felt sorry for Allred, who was totally out of his depth attempting a film. Also felt sorry for myself, what an incredible waste of my time and money. Please buy my VHS copy, which is available right now on eBay. Hurry up.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.

He has very few lines.

Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.

He looks callous,calcined.

"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").

I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.
Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!

The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.

As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.

I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!

The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.

The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.

This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.

A must see for a science fiction fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a "skinemax T&A flick", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.

The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.

Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.

Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.

The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.
Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.

The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.

The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.

However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.

Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.

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

negative
Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him. 

But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here. 

This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The "heroine" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the "hero" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all. 

It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck. 

So all in all...this movie helped some "C" through "Z" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " 

Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?

THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind
In many ways, the perfect movie. The "Incredible Journey" and Horatio Alger tale come together for a positive spin on the usually depressing subject of existentialism. In essence, the travails of the muppets boil down to the finale song of the movie: "Life's like a movie, write your own ending, keep believing, keep pretending." They create their own reality, which has all the trappings of every epic tale: a lofty goal at the end of what is necessarily a obstacle-laden journey; an ever-increasing group of like-minded individuals for camaraderie; a nasty set of villians who are not beyond all redemption; and a big-budget Hollywood ending because, darn it all, they CAN.

Only Jim Henson could pull this off. He walks the line between sentimentality and philosophy without swerving too long or too hard into either. Of course it seems odd that invest such weight into a film starring puppets, but in the end perhaps they are the perfect, uh, puppet to make these points. The movie's atmosphere allows for the pure enjoyment of the Hollywood dream, the "happy" ending, unnecessary cameos, and bursting into song at the drop of a hat. Usually these aspects are anathema to quality in film, but the self-deprecating manner under which the story is delivered makes for guilt-free viewing. One of the few films that can truly be called "suitable for all ages."

The other muppet-related films (including "The Empire Strikes Back"), while palatable, do not touch the simple grace of this film. Take, for instance, the musical number "Hope that Something Better Comes Along," the duet of Kermit and Rowlf. Amusing in its vaudevillian goofiness, yet makes a bitingly crucial point about the motivations behind life choices. Brilliant.

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

positive
Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed, that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense, character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that set the scene for film noire for years to come.

Cinematically and technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le Stéphanois's hallucinogenic drive towards redemption.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.

In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.

Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.

The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic "Network" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because "I already have one malpractice lawsuit".

Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie was absolute trash. The director and stars(?)should be banished from making movies forever. The paper-thin plot concerns a sleazy director played by the sleazy director (now thats acting) advertising on the internet for women to star in a snuff movie. 

There's no horror at all, the girls look strung-out and bored, the direction is pointless, the music is misplaced (heavy metal in a library scene?), and the lighting is awful. The director should have cashed in a couple more shopping carts full of aluminum cans and gotten a script, sober actors, and a few light bulbs. As it is, this is one disgusting, nasty, worthless mess of a movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.
Whoa!Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, did I mention terrible?You can tell just by the DVD cover not to get this movie, but unfortunately that wasn't the case for me.Well, someone brought this home for me to watch, and when I looked at it I just wanted to strangle the person, because they used my money.I will certainly be taking it back soon, but I might as well tell you about it while I have it in memory, for I definitely want to forget it.This movie doesn't deserve to even be called horrible.It's beyond horrible.Quite possibly, the worst film ever.The acting was so, so, so, so horrifically disgusting, as well as the deaths being so ENTIRELY lame and predictable.I didn't even laugh at how bad this movie was, which kind of frightens me a little.Don't see this film, shame on you if you're even looking at this movie page, and I have EXTREME pity for you if you're looking at this movie page, because you think this will be DECENT.Final word: YUCK!!!!!!!!!!

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

negative
It was the first action movie made in banned in USSR Hollywood action style. It is not even close to the Hollywood action movies of that time. The plot is childish, the directing is so-so. This movie succeeded because it was first of its kind in Russia. Even though I watched it many times I have to admit it was kind of naive and I did not like it. This is not the best example of Russian action movie. This is just the first experience.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This is a title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the "ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of "American Werewolf in London" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.
First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.

Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.

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

negative