cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).

The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.

Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?

Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.

The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.

Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Steven Segal's movie career is a tribute to horrible cinema. I have been tragically bored with every one of them as soon as I realized that they were even more unrealistic than Jean Claude VanDamme's. Has anyone else ever noticed that he never gets hit?! I mean, give me something to root for...a hard fought battle with a bad guy who's scary. TWENTY YEARS and he's still filming the same fight scenes. Fight scenes can often distract you from the fact that your hero cannot act. The boring choreography of a Segal film places his painful lack of acting skill in sharp relief. Worse yet, he's woefully out of shape. Just what we need, a fat stiff who THINKS he's a leading man. There's not one iota of redeeming cinematic value in all this movies ninety or so minutes. Do NOT watch this unless you feel like throwing away an hour and a half of your life.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this superior tale of Holmes battling the 3rd Reich and the mastermind genius of Professor Moriarty. The film opens up in Switzerland as Holmes is in disguise as an "old bookseller." He must bring Dr. Tobel and the Tobel Bomb Site to England before the Germans can kidnap Tobel. Holmes succeeds and the Germans recuit the evil Professor. Moriarty manages to outwit Scotland yard and LeStrad "Dennis Hoey" by kidnapping Tobel. The only clue left by Tobel is a list of "dancing men." Who will break the hidden code of dancing men, Holmes or Moriarty first? Can Holmes prevent the bomb site from falling into the German hands thereby saving England from the precision bombing techniques developed by Tobel's bomb site? Watch and enjoy.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.

First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?

Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.

Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Richard Condie is a Canadian marvel, and one that should be shared with the world. Be it for gut-busting early work such as "Getting Started" and the Oscar-nominated "Snit" through "The Apprentice" and the digitally made "La Salla", Condie is a treasured local hero. But no singular piece of work puts a stamp on his career quite like "The Big Snit". And did I mention it was nominated for an Academy Award? Darn tootin'.

"The Big Snit", although clearly a dated message-bearer from the 1980s (the short revolves around Cold War-esquire nuclear annihilation, but don't worry  it's hilarious as hell), carries with it a larger meaning, as is most of Condie's work in an understated sort of way. While the planet scurries for cover from Armageddon, a couple bickers over each others' annoying habits (in true Condie fashion, he hacksaws the furniture while she shakes her eyes  literally). And don't forget to watch it again and again, 'cuz there's always something to look at. Condie loads this fella up with countless visual gags and memorable catch-phrases.

I strongly encourage this incredible piece of animation be tracked down. In Canada it's usually spotted in a National Film Board video that includes other stellar shorts (including fellow Winnipegger Cordell Barker's equally funny "The Cat Came Back"). Americans will just have to dig a little deeper, but keep at it  the reward is worth the toil.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hummmm,...ANOTHER Keystone comedy set in the park!!! It seems that the number one location spot for shooting was in this same local park, as so many of Chaplin's and Arbuckle's films are set there! And, while this is yet another one, it is different enough and well made that I still enjoyed it.

Fatty is interested in a younger than usual looking and acting Mabel Normand. I think she's supposed to be a little younger, though in her mother's eyes she is TOO YOUNG to be interested in men. Well, Fatty does not share her feelings and soon he and Mabel run away for some innocent fun. Things get complicated when the mother's watch is stolen. Fatty finds it and gives it to Mabel as a gift,...and MANY problems result.

Decent pacing and the fact that this movie did not rely too much on cheap slapstick but a reasonable plot make this a cute and enjoyable little film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I remember seeing this years ago, It had a reasonably promising start, with an interesting premise, but then it degenerated into nonsense quite quickly. Uninteresting characters, failed attempts to add drama and tension, and a bit of simplistic philosophy thrown in too, all culminating in a terrible ending. 

Simply, it's trash. 

Before I saw this TV film, I didn't think I would ever have any film that I thought was the "worst" I had seen, but after I finished watching this, I knew that from then on, if anyone asked me what the worst film I had ever seen was, I could say without hesitation - "The Second Coming".

Avoid.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
George Zucco was like Boris Karloff in the fact no matter how poor the film he appeared in was, he would always maintain a sense of dignity and turn in a fine performance. "The Mad Monster" is no exception to that rule. It is by all standards a poor (if entertaining) film. The filmmakers obviously didn't know how to make the most of their low budget and the script seems as if it was turned out in one or two days. Still, Zucco is fine and believable as the mad scientist.

The film itself is enjoyable on a camp level. Normal horror movie fans for the most part won't take a liking to PRC films. However, these "Poverty Row" productions have a small but loyal cult following. Occasionally they would rise above their limitations with "Detour" being the best example of this. Usually they looked like this. For all its technically poor qualities, "The Mad Monster" is an amusing enough way to kill a rainy afternoon. The DVD from Retromedia is recommended, as it pairs this with another PRC production "The Black Raven", the original theatrical trailer, and best of all an interview with Glenn Strange talking about his role in this movie. (4/10)

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

negative
They said it would be a film greater than Turks Fruit. How dare

they? It's not even 10% of this classic. Bad acting. The only character i felt sympathy for was the one

played by Angela Schijf. Her acting was the best in the whole film. The story could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Some scenes were very beautiful filmed (lights and camera), (the

opening scene for example), but the bad acting made the magic

disappear.

I really don't understand why so many people voted this film so

good.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie had horrible lighting and terrible camera movements. This movie is a jumpy horror flick with no meaning at all. The slashes are totally fake looking. It looks like some 17 year-old idiot wrote this movie and a 10 year old kid shot it. With the worst acting you can ever find. People are tired of knives. At least move on to guns or fire. It has almost exact lines from "When A Stranger Calls". With gruesome killings, only crazy people would enjoy this movie. It is obvious the writer doesn't have kids or even care for them. I mean at show some mercy. Just to sum it up, this movie is a "B" movie and it sucked. Just for your own sake, don't even think about wasting your time watching this crappy movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.

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

negative
Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just plain silly.

But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere! Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman, but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work despite some of the lame lines he is given to say.

Paul Sorvino is fun to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too.

This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Some people think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.

Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.

Compared to his previous movie Sånger från andra våningen / Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.

Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about.
Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Most people attending this film will have no idea of the great novel by Arthur Miller that is the basis of it. It's a novel that should be read by more people to see how prejudice affects and alters peoples lives.

At the beginning, Lawrence Newman is an ordinary man. The eyeglasses his boss makes him get change everything he has worked for and his whole world collapses around him, little by little. There couldn't have been an actor better suited to bring this intelligent performance to the screen than William H. Macy. Not only is he a talented stage and screen actor, but he projects honesty behind every character he plays. He is an everyday man caught in his own insecurities. His anxiety intensifies when he takes a stand and walks out of his job. Suddenly, he has to confront the issues he has tried to avoid all his middle class existence in the Brooklyn of the 40s. Is he Jewish, is he not? The cinematography in this brilliant and atmospheric film, directed with sure hand by Neil Slavin, kept reminding me of some Edward Hopper's paintings, especially a sequence at the beginning of the film when Newman steps outside a building and the night shot when he and his wife are being followed with long black shadows behind the couple, menacing and anticipating the confrontation with the bullies. Laura Dern, David Paymer, and especially Meat Loaf, who infuses incredible depth to the bully-next-door, are excellent, but they all pale in comparison with the stellar turn of William H. Macy (H must stand for HONEST..) If you haven't read the book, I would sincerely recommend it because no one has written more truly and convincingly than Arthur Miller has.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I feel privileged to have accidentally seen this movie. I actually ran across this movie by accident. I was taping another movie on Showtime one night, overnight and this movie came on afterward. So I sat and watched it and boy was I blown away. The acting is absolutely superb. Kathy Bates...who has been my favorite actress since Misery and Fried Green Tomatoes gave an amazing performance as a domineering mother who tries desperately to hold on to her old school values (religion, family) at the risk of alienating her family. Martin Sheen is superb as the "tough" patriarch who is really not in control of anything in his life or family. The one thing I really loved about this movie is how it tells what happens when the heroes come home. It shows the true damage that is done to our soldiers after they fight pointless wars for political and financial gain. This movie just blew me away and I feel blessed to have accidentally taped this movie and seen it. This is a must-see for anyone who wants a true drama, this is not too melodramatic and preachy, but pulls at your heartstrings like none other

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.

Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.

That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.

*SPOILER*

Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.

*END SPOILER*

The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

There is more to this movie than meets the eye. If you're looking for groundbreaking originality or easy comedy, you'll be disappointed. But for an entertaining 90 minutes, this is just fine.

The cinematography is careful and precise. The sex scenes, which one comment decries as gratuitous, are anything but - every gesture contributes to the development of the characters.

Yes, some of the main characters are not exactly lovable human beings. But the movie makes an honest effort at showing their interactions in an honest light, without being sensationalistic (at least not for early 21st century urban standards). And there are many very amusing moments.
before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.

the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.

the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.

the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).

live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.

3/10

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

negative
Who'd a thought suicide could be dealt with in a way that's palpable by everyone? I saw the film at SXSW at it's premier and it turned out to be the best film there by far. Yes, its warped and it's bizarre, but it makes sense in the world the filmmaker (Michael Parness) creates. If you didn't laugh (most everyone did), then you just ain't getting it and thats a darn shame. Particularly of note, Guillermo Diaz as Hector steals a bunch of scenes and the chemistry between Natasha Lyonne and David Krumholtz is intense. The film reminds one of Harold and Maude, but not really, it takes one bizarre spin after another, and they do all make sense in this crazy mixed up world we all live in. I stayed (as did most) for the Q & A afterward and what was great was hearing that the same things I thought in my head as to why things "happened" are the reasons they did. I don't think you can say much bad about the film, unless you didn't get it. I think I got it and it seemed like most everyone else did as well. The film is dubbed a suicidal comedy, but its got a lot of heart, a lot of laughs and offers a lot of hope, yet it doesn't shy away from the horrors of suicide as well. A nice little movie that should get attention when it gets a release, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

It would be wrong and reprehensible of me to advise you to watch Killjoy 2, you must have better things to do, washing the car, throwing stones in a stream, but at the same time it's nowhere near as awful as you probably think it is. It's almost a proper film, which a lot more than most straight-to-DVD sludge can manage. Killjoy 2 is helped a great deal by Trent Haaga's manic turn as the eponymous clown, he throws himself into the role with such fevered abandonment that he almost tips the scales in the movie's favour, but, of course, it takes more than one man in big shoes. Tammi Sutton gives the most entertaining director cameo since Roger Corman in Creature from the Haunted Sea and the whole thing is nearly destroyed by the rushed, sugary ending. All over the place and almost good fun.
Determine the sentiment:

BROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.

At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: "I don't think there will be any Q&A." Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.

WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.

Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.

You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.

Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.

The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran.

Sunil is very close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 

Well-known comedians meekly admit they wish they could do real satire like Bill Hicks. Inbetween these pitiful testimonies, we are treated to what an exceptionally talented comedian can achieve when he could otherwise be chasing fame and fortune. He didn't get his own talk show, but at least he was no one's puppet.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.

I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.

The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.

They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.

Guess I should read the book...

Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.

I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This trash version of `Romeo and Juliet' passes in Manhattan in the present days. Romeo (Will Keenan) is an a**hole and violent member of family Que, and Juliet (Jane Jensen) is a sexy (with beautiful legs and breasts) and bisexual girl of Capulet family. The scatological situations this romantic pair will face are very funny. Although being a cult movie (inclusive exhibited in Rio de Janeiro Festival), it is not recommended for all the audiences. If the viewer is fan of Peter Jackson's former movies (`Braindead', `Bad Taste'), `Toxic Avenger', `Body Melt' and other trash movie, he will certainly love this flick. Otherwise, he will hate it. Since I belong to the first group, my vote is eight.
What's an example of a movie review?

This game is very good for the n64. You can skate as Tony Hawk, Bob Burnquist, Steve Caballero, Kareem Campell, Eric Koston, Bucky Lasek, Rune Glifberg, Andrew Reynolds, Elissa Steamer, Jamie Thomas, Rodney Mullen, Chad Muska, and maybe some more skaters. The game doesn't have Mike V or Bam Margera. Dang! Well anyway, the gameplay is awesome. The level School II is a great level with so much to skate. In Career mode, you collect SKATE, get money, get high scores and other various things in 2 minutes. There's create a skater, which is pretty cool. I created a skater named Butt Mulligan, a black guy with an afro, and a Girl board. There's park editor, some cool premade parks, free skate, and there's single session where you skate for 2 minutes and get a score. You can watch replays, which is always cool. Each skater has 2 styles: A and B. The graphics aren't that good. Well, they're good for an n64 game. I wish I had a controller pack so I could save my data. Overall, this game is awesome. I give it an 8/10 for n64. But with the GBA version, it's just as fun as the n64 version, but kinda hard to control. I give it a 7/10 for GBA. So, go out to a place that still sells n64 games and pick up a copy. There's also versions for PS1.
This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.

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

negative
a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.

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

negative
honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.

it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.

Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.

This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.

Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The first full-length film featuring the Aardman characters Wallace and Gromit manages to bring in elements of all the previous half-hour show which aired on television.

Wallace runs a company to humanely capture rogue rabbits from people's vegetable gardens, and has the bright idea to try out his invention on the hapless bunnies once they're caught. Of course, as in other Wallace and Gromit films, things don't quite work out as planned.

Similarly to A Close Shave, there's a love interest for Wallace, in this case the village Lady Posh, and a big mean villain with a bullish dog. Gromit is beautifully animated with a wide range of expressions making the character laugh out loud funny. And of course Peter Sallis provides the voice of Wallace again and is a perfect fit.

And as in A Grand Day Out, cheese features heavily to great comedic effect as the film moves along.

On the negative side this film is a little on the long side. There are great effects, and some pieces which make you sit up and watch, but perhaps this story would have worked better as another short subject rather than pushing it to feature-length.
Write a negative movie review.

The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive. 

TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?

TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.
Determine the sentiment:

This movie gives you more of an idiea how Australians act. Even though The Castle is a great Australian movie, it's a bit out there. This movie is by far the best Aussie flick I have seen (haven't seen Dirty Deeds yet) and probably would be my favourite movie. The point is, if you haven't seen it, go see it. If a crime/action/comedy is your thing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive