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

For avid Sci-Fi fans this movie is just what you've been waiting for. Watching this movie gets you lost into the characters, especially Riddick, the movies bad guy. This is the case where you root for the bad guy and want to see him live and win. As you watch the survivors struggle to stay alive you long to see who lives and how they survive these unknown creatures that have taken over this planet. An excellent movie, Vin Diesel did a wonderful job as convict Riddick and the acting and suspense were ravishing.A+
Write a positive movie review.

A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.

The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.

Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.

The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.

A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.

Well worth a viewing.
As a kid I grew up with the chintzy 60's TV series (and no I'm not that old POW!). However when director Tim Burton brought his novel vision to the silver screen, I simply took an immediate shine to it and never backed away from favoring his installments over the much hyped-latest additions ('Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'), which I don't really care for. Even if they're going for a much more grounded approach and wanting to explore Bruce Wayne/Batman psyche further but in honesty I don't think there's all that much to tap in to. I wanted crazy fun with a dark streak and in my eyes that's what Burton brought across, and this is the reason why I can watch them over and over again. 

After wowing audiences with the 1989 'Batman', thanks to the gaudily Gothic art direction and Jack Nicholson take no-prisoners performance of the camped-up, but psychotic Joker. Burton would return 3 years later for the follow up and my favorite of the batman films so far; 'Batman Returns'. Camp, but well-done. In what would fair up to being even more expansive, louder, dreary, and nihilistic and having two villainous foes for the price of one. Enter the grotesque Penguin (with Danny DeVito magnificently going out on a limb) and the ravishing Catwoman (a steamy Michelle Pfeiffer who fills out the suit nicely) coming to spoil Gotham's party. Again Batman (an aptly brooding Michael Keaton is equally commendable and looks quite imposing in that bat suit look at the eyes) plays second fiddle to the bad guys, but I always preferred this sober interpretation of Batman that gave him an ominously gloomy mystique, but also a wearing psychological complexity that never felt the need to force feed. And his turn of Bruce Wayne was well served too. Burton's illustratively atmospheric direction opens with his sleek Gothic style engraving an carnival comic book world filtered in with a splendid range of characters and vivid costumes. The moody narrative (in what probably is a tad too long) is more so symbolic in its progression, rather show-piecing its spontaneously arresting and extravagant set-pieces and sharply etched art direction covered with shadowy tinges and grey/blue neon lighting of a wintry backdrop. The magnetically free-flowing camera-work takes flight and Danny Elfman's stately spacious score balances the playfulness along with gloomy touches with a very hypnotic pull. The rest of the performances might be overshadowed, but Christopher Walken digs in his teeth into a smarmily glassy role of a two-faced businessman Max Shreck. Pat Hingle is back, but gets very little to do as Commissioner James Gordon and Michael Gough is delightful as Alfred. In solid support are Michael Murphy, Andrew Bryniarski, Vincent Schiavelli, Doug Jones and Peter Rubens also makes a cameo appearance.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).

Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.

On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling.

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

positive
This movie, without doubt is the best I have seen, and really shows what British talent can do. It's effects are exceedingly good considering the movie is set in the mid 18th Century, and all the grittiness and disgusting filth of England at the time, is captured very well. The character's are developed and fleshed out, from MaCleane's whoring antics to his development into highwayman and exhibitionary 'The Gentleman Highwayman' contrast well with Robert Carlyle, who's cynicism and honour show that you can love a thief and a criminal cos I quote: 'He's got more honour in his little finger, than any of you fat bastards!'

Not referring to you of course! But it has arguably the most stirring and emotionally charged scene ever witnessed in a movie, but you'll just have to see it to find out, suffice to say that it involves rope round your neck.



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

positive
I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the "Spirit of St. Louis" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.

Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel.

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

positive
I had to write a review for this film after I saw it last night and read some of the comments of people trying to classify the displeasure of this film go down to wfmitchell's post)). I don't fit any any of those classification. The other classification that needs to be on the list is 5) people didn't like this movie because it was not good. I found the film to be booring and forced. My wife picked it for us to see because she is a huge Kidman fan and she also likes Jude Law.

Speaking of Law, it took a long time and a huge amount of suspension of belief for me to believe his southern accent. I can't help but wonder if they didn't make his character less talkative on purpose so we would't have to hear that tortured accent so much.

As far as the movie, it took a long time for it to get interesting (about 1 or 1.5 hours), and then fell flat in it's ending. What was interesting, is that I did not know that this film was directed by Minghella. About 40 minutes into the movie, I asked my wife "this isn't going to be another English Patient is it?" It absolutely was.

As far as the battle scenes. I'm trying to think of a word to describe the opening battle scene, but I think the most descriptive word that accurately describes it is simply "dumb". It was forced, it was unbelievable, it was silly and it was dumb. (After the battle I looked at my wife and asked "was that just dumb?" to which she vigorously nodded her head).

The only bright point in the film was the performance of Zellweger. The role was a bit over acted like any decent comedy relief role, but it worked. From her speech pattern, her walk, her mannerisms and esp. her little quips (my favorite: "If you want to get 3 feet up a bull's ass all you have to do is listen to sweethearts talk to each other"), she was able to create an almost cartoon-like character who did her job extremely well.

I simply did not like this movie and I have to wonder about the kind of people who do say they like it (or the English Patient for that matter). I suspect you could categorize them in one category: 1) Soap opera fans

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I really don't know if this was supposed to be science fiction or horror. It was confusing to say the least. What really upset me, however, was the lack of story development between the characters.

The Sheriff's (Bruce Boxleitner) 17-year-old daughter (Clara Bryant) is stuck with him for the summer, and they don't spend 30 seconds on screen together at any one time.

The hot Native American (Jennifer Lee Wiggins) apparently has the hots for the Sheriff, but they don't spend any time together either.

The hot secretary (Kristen Honey) ends up dead and she had more acting ability than the other two put together.

The bad developer vs. the Native Americans is an overused story, but I personally like evil developers getting theirs as I live in Florida.

The only reason I stayed with this was the creature. It was original. I have never seen anything like it and I am a sucker for new creatures.
The one thing that can be said about RUNNING OUT OF TIME is that it's an immensely clever film. It's interesting to note that the film's writers are French, which may explain the movie's "out of the norm" vibe, as it doesn't really fit in with what is commonly called "Hong Kong Cinema".

The movie concerns a thief who plans revenge on some criminal types using the assistance of an equally clever cop. But first he has to convince the cop to join his personal crusade, and so begins a series of games where the thief manuevers the cop into his plan.

Quite a clever movie.

7 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie or full-length reviews of other foreign films)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in "Casablanca" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?
I found this movie to be okay.

On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!

In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.

a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!

b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.

Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.

Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of "educational moments." The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature of the series are the circumstances surrounding his "education", which are outright embarrassing, yet funny at the same time.
Determine the sentiment:

If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to "un-popular" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, "What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think." I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is so bad, they wouldn't buy it back at my local used CD/DVD store. I only own it because it came in a box set which I bought for the masterpiece "Deadfall". The store bought back the other two movies I was selling from the four disc set, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld, and those other two movies redefined rank, so what does that say about this movie? So I tried to sell it back to another store, that even bought back budget DVDs that you could buy for a dollar at a local store, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld either. This movie is bad on every level, and is one of those that came out in the post-Tarantino-clone glut of the mid 90's. The only slightly redeemable element is Dennis Leary telling Joe Montegna, that he's a "stinky friend" and calls him "Mister Stinky Friend". That line is so delightfully horrible, that I can't help but quote it at least once a week when describing a stinky friend. But now that I've enlightened you with that quote, you don't have to go thru the pain of watching this movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.

The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.

The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.

I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called "inspired" syndrome.

He must at least give credit where it is due.

I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.

Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425350/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about.
Write a negative movie review.

Contrary to most of the comments in this section, I have to say this film just barely escapes the definition 'rubbish!'. The only readers who seem to be aware of what a catalogue of clichés it is are those who, like me, live in the north-east and know at first hand what the area is like. I am totally sick of films that are supposed to be 'realistic', yet portray the working class (of wherever) as stupid, criminal low-lifes, but then excuse them because of their social background. And funny? I smiled briefly twice and laughed once, but that was at the incongruity of two boy actors with Sunderland accents supposedly trying to hide their Newcastle accents from Sunderland football fans! There was only one likable character in the whole film, and that was the senile grandfather played quietly but very competently by Roy Hudd -- the only non-Geordie in the cast.

As for the writing -- well, I just wonder what university sociology department the author studied at. He certainly had no ear for the local accent. And I too have never heard the expression 'Purely Belter' -- and not only am I a native, I'm a linguist who's written articles on the local dialect.

Don't waste your time and eyesight on this garbage. It isn't funny, it isn't realistic, it isn't entertaining, and it is fundamentally dishonest.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Don't ask me why I love this movie so much...Maybe it came at a time in my life I desperately wanted to fit in, maybe it is the amazing monster effects, maybe because I enjoyed the novel "Cabal", but It's probably because I LOVE Clive Barker. I think it's fair to warn you the movie and the novel have no true resolve and like me you'll probably have a WTF moment at the end. At least two sequels were planned but never came about due to the fact the movie flopped for a few reasons. The studio made drastic cuts to the film cutting a good 30 or so minutes out of it and they did a HORRIBLE job promoting it. The adverts made it look like just another cheap slasher showing mainly the "Button face/Mask" Decker character. This is a movie about the monsters! About fantasy! About a place called Midian! It's a story where the monsters are the good guys. There is truly nothing else out there like it! It's not a movie for everybody I suppose but it stands as one of Clive's many great works. Sit back and be prepared to be taken to Midian - where the monsters are.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie is a gem...an undiscovered Gerry Anderson classic.

The origins of both "UFO" and "Space 1999" are obvious from this movie, including the cast list which includes the late Ed Bishop and George Sewell who both went onto "UFO".

It is unfortunate that Anderson, despite his many TV successes, did not get a chance to develop his talent on the big screen. Just think what he could have done with the movie version of "Thunderbirds" (which he quite rightly disowned himself from!).

I'm sure if you give "JTTFSOTS"/"Doppleganger" a fair chance you'll appreciate it's good qualities.
Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show. I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance! Trust me, it's good!

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

positive
This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.

More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.

In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.

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

negative
Once again, I am amazed that Thomas Gibson did not come to the head of the pack earlier in his career. In this film, Gibson once again demonstrates his ability to grasp a character regardless of sexuality, social status or nationality. Gibson plays a very convincing gay male of the late 20th Century. Tender yet not effeminate, afraid of the basic tenets of love, Gibson's character touches a variety of emotions. Also worthy of praise is Cameron Bancroft's performance. His need to be the heterosexual conqueror as opposed to his best friend's "homosexual conquests" provides dynamics for the relationship that are in many ways unexpected. Bancroft and Gibson's chemistry is apparent from the first scene they appear in together. There are many "panels" in this quilt. From gay relationships to straight relationships; from heterosexual relationships to the exploration of lesbian love; this film travels across the broad spectrum of sexuality while having the story of a serial killer at its core. My only regret is that it took 6 years since its release before I discovered this movie! I look forward to seeing it again and highly recommend it to any fan of Bancroft, Gibson or Director Denys Arcand.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.

The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.

The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Just saw Baby Blue Marine again after 30 years. I still find it a pleasant and romantic film which catches a time which has been lost forever. The innocence and purity of a time now long gone, is truthfully captured in this small film. The acting is above average and Richard Gere's brief appearance as a shell-shocked Raider Marine war hero, holds a keen interest for any film buff or Gere fan. Jan-Micheal Vincent is in his prime and looks and acts like the "All-American" boy. The late Bruno Kirby (who was billed as B.Kirby, Jr.) has a meaty role as "Pop", a peace-loving, Marine Corp reject, dreaming of getting back home to his wife. If you're looking for sex, drugs, or rock and roll, this movie is not for you. If you're looking for action and adventure, the same applies. However, if you want to recapture a time in America of innocence, honor, romance, and love, then Baby Blue Marine is a movie for you.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!
What's an example of a movie review?

This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the "acting" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of "you know what happened, one time this guy" heresay. It's info better read in a book.
This is a pretty faithful adaptation of Masuji Ibuse's novel, "Black Rain." Like the book it is very moving and thought-provoking. The story revolves around a couple's attempts to see their niece successfully married. They are having trouble finding suitors because of a rumor that she suffers from radiation sickness, after walking through Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. Well filmed, well acted, moving, tragic, horrifying and funny.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.

Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.

Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.
Some of the reviewers of this film were extremely "generous" with praise. I personally was disappointed, because due to those reviews, I was optimistic as the opening credits began to roll.

The all-too familiar story line goes like this: Deformed boy and his father live out in Louisiana swamp. Local boys ridicule and torment him. Local boys start Gruesome's, oh sorry, I mean Victor Crowley's cabin on fire with him in it. Dad attempts to rescue his son, formerly known as Eddie Munster meets the Elephant Man, but accidentally puts a hatchet through the kid's head instead. Victor becomes a murderous ghost who hunts down unfortunates who enter his domain. Oooo... scary.

One thing I appreciated about Hatchet was that it never took itself seriously and some of the gags even made me laugh. The thing is, I've grown tired of the Hollywood-polished, B-horror slap-sticks. I like to laugh and I enjoy a good scare, but this film didn't deliver a solid dose of either. As for Crowley being the next Michael, Jason, or Freddy... Pumpkinhead has a better chance.

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

negative
The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.

I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.

Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.

The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.

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

negative
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.

One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.

I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.

So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.

It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.

The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.

As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.
Write a positive movie review.

36. THE HOSPITAL (comedy, 1971) A series of emergencies has gripped Manhattan Hospital. Patients are dying left and right due to overcrowded conditions, and a ineptitude staff. When a resident doctor is caught up in the death count the chief medical examiner, Dr. Bock (George C. Scott), is called in to investigate. Having worked as a doctor for too many years, and going through a mid-life crisis of his own, Dr. Bock finds the going tough. He decides to commit suicide. But then he meets Barbara (Diana Rigg), a young-hippie beauty. Whose keen insights on life help the depressed Bock.

Critique: Black comedy features a 'tour-de-force' performance from veteran actor George C. Scott. He's good at playing high-strung, serious characters whose strict morals are severely tested. First half of the film unfolds like a melodrama, giving a pretty good account of hospital life, and the shambles they sometimes are. But then, as things look set for a dramatic climax it skews into slapstick comedy. If Paddy Chayefsky's script had maintained its dramatic feel I wonder if Scott would've walked out with another best Actor Oscar (he had previously won it, 'in-absentia', the year before). His breakdown (suicide) scene is one of the most gut-wrenchingly real in cinema history.

QUOTE: Dr. Bock: ". . .last night I sat in my hotel room reviewing the shambles of my life and contemplating suicide. I said 'no Bock don't do it. You're a doctor, a healer, you're a necessary person, you're life is meaningful'. Then. . .I find out that one of my doctors was killed by a couple of nurses. . .how am I to sustain my feeling of meaningfulness in the face of this?"
After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.

"The Last Stop" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Encurralados" ("Trapped")
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I first watched this movie back in the mid/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.

Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: "Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?"

"Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!"

This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Okay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a pretty clever, well-acted version of the "modern" 30s woman's fairytale romance. In this case, she helps the man she loves become head of the company while serving as his secretary and eventually wins his love from a scheming social butterfly. Interestingly, her business sense is shown as subtly parallel to her homemaking prowess, and the ladies of the office are depicted as the "powers behind the throne." Lifted way above the average by Mrs. Astor's intelligent performance.

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

positive
If you've got a box of tissues, a comfy couch, a large bowl of popcorn and no social commitment on a Friday night, this is definitely your movie! Its romantic, its hot and its challenging. For most of us gay people, religion is just one of those things that we did when we were kids and probably just starred at the alter boy and how cute he was! But in Latter Days, you see the struggles of being gay when your entire world revolves around belief's which totally contradict being gay. The two main cast members were totally hot, but at the same time managed to capture your heart and even make me 'almost' cry (I have never cried in a movie!), which I thought was quite impressive for a B grade movie. I highly recommend this flick, you will laugh, you will cry (unless your me) and you will definitely drool! I love it so much I even purchased the DVD for my collection. Its truly the most beautiful movie ever
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw "capturing the friedmans" a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.

The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.

51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive