cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
First of all. I do not look down on Americans. I know lots of people that are intelligent people from the USA. But this Movie is so utterly bad, that i just had to comment on it.

First of all...Movies are mostly far from the truth. This movie is no exception. Lots of scene's are so incredibly false. For example the departure of the 2 space ships. You see them drop off the full tanks in space. Just a small distance from each other. Remember what caused the space shuttle to explode in the past ? Just a tinsy winsy part that came off. In here it is just common to drop fuel tanks that are as big if not bigger then the whole ship. What idiot would let 2 spaceships lift up and do that at the same time ??? Second of it is that the Russian station is a piece of (s)crap. I hate to bring this up to you, but astronauts nowadays go to Russia. Since their equipment is much more reliable then NASA's. The Space Shuttle is retired. And NASA uses it just to pay off the bills. And there is no better alternative for it. And the list of whoppers goes on and on. This is truly an insult to people that do take space travel serious. And i know half as much as these guys do. But the most annoying part ( read: the whole movie ) is the Propaganda and patriot crap that u get choked with. MY GOD !!!! I thought i was looking at a CNN business commercial for like an hour. The actors solve their petty problems by shooting at each other, giving the middle finger to everyone they come face to face with, start up fights, ignore the police, etc, etc... But when it comes to their love for their country and sacrificing their lives, suddenly everyone stands in line to commit suicide for it ( bomb detonator ) ?? Maybe i lack the feeling of being a true "Patriot", that can sing the national anthem backwards in Swahili. Whilst riding with George Bush behind the steering wheel of a golf cart, driving in circles until the battery is empty. But this movie was too much for me too handle. And when i finally got hold and pulled the flag pole and fabric of the American flag out of my hiney. I realised that i was glad this movie was finally done. I do not know why so much good actors participated in this narrow minded, stereotyping, propaganda movie. But i pity them. This represents a country where you can get away with murder if you have money or power. As long as "Uncle Sam" thinks you are a good patriot. Where everyone is happy as long as it is another country that has been devastated, no one cares.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Opera" is one of the greatest achievements in horror genre. This masterful picture has everything what should be in the pure horror movie:good, captivating story, a lot of symbols, wonderful visuals and plenty of gore. The killings are very shocking and bloody. An unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear. A must-see for a true Argento fan, so if you get a chance watch it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I watched this movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like "B" Movies. I consider "Ice Pirates" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director/writer of this cinematic marvel.

Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.

Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.

Writing/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...

Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I do not want to go into a criticism of the movie which I think is - for a big budget movie - quite exceptional and daring.

I just wanted to remark that I am really fed up with the studios policies and the laws of different states which treat their viewers like children. In the database we find at least 4 different versions of the movie according to running time. But, of course, it is likely that there are much more different cuts.

The result is complete confusion and you can never be sure to talk about the same movie (unless you live in Argentina where the movie runs 115 minutes which sounds quite complete).

Later on DVD and Video, the studios try to rob us further by selling us a presumable director's cut (in Germany, there is already such a version around, running approx. 110 minutes).

It would be nice, if the studios would not only think of the cash they make with their movies but also think of their products as a work of art, even at the risk of an unfavourable rating, so that I as a viewer don't have to feel cheated and am taken seriously, not only as a resource of money.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I enjoyed this series, but felt that the whole thing was let down by the sound recording/mixing.

For whatever reason, they've had to employ an awful lot of what's called ADR, where the actors replace the original location sound with a re-recording of it in a sound booth.

The reasons for doing this are usually due to problems at the location, or because somebody screwed up somewhere in the sound production chain.

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADR was done well, but at times it's just plain distracting. It's not just the ADR that's the problem - the sound mix just doesn't match up to the quality of performances and the pictures.

I'd be curious to know what went wrong.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was sooooooo sloooow!!! And everything in it was bland, the acting, the plot,etc. It was such a disappointment, since the description looked so good! Do not be fooled! This movie is not worth the time it takes to watch it!!!
Write a negative movie review.

this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I enjoyed this for a couple of reasons. The emotional tangle was at times confusing and imperfectly resolved, but the blend of newsreel footage with the film's narrative was often compelling. The other element that I appreciated was the depiction of the Werewolves, the fanatical Nazis who continued the fight after the formal surrender. I don't know of another film that deals with them. They assassinated Burgomaster Oppenhoff of Aachen on Palm Sunday, 1945, for example, and did create problems for the occupation. The film, then, challenges the sanitized version of victory and occupation with some gritty realities. The "human issues" are presented not so much through the characters here, but through the historical reality that was gripping those who had survived Hitler -- both conquered and victors.
Determine the sentiment:

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.

Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.

I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!

And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.

The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.

I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Hell to Pay is a bit bloody for my taste, even though it is no worse than many films. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the parade of seasoned stars and the western scenery & all; but, the story-line was very weak and I couldn't really see the point of it all. However, the music that accompanies the movie more than makes up for the lackluster film.

Where did the guys -Nate & Noah Cryns- who wrote this music come from? They are awesome!! From the moment the music begins, it is by far, better than anything I've heard in years. I think it may be the best I've ever heard! Even though I wasn't thrilled with the action taking place on the film, the music evoked the exact emotion that was needed for each scene. I was transported in time to the old west during the opening credits and really felt like I was re-living those old days through the music.

This movie is definitely worth a purchase and a viewing for the beautiful music and a trip down memory lane to see the old western stars once again.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.
Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the chiaroscuro.

Richard Corliss says, "It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture and death on Golgotha." That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences.

There's an environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole, but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies.

And yeah, if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with Murnau's FAUST.

~ Ray
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the 'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent! The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years.

I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's charm.

I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet seen it.

You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).

In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love.
Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.

The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.

Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Not knowing a great deal about the Truth and Reconciliation commission, I can only look at this as a piece of entertainment. I started watching it too late in the evening (recorded from BBC2 earlier this year) but once I'd started I had to watch to the end.

The down-side is that it's effectively a courtroom drama - never my favourite genre - but it's stunningly photographed (largely in super-saturated ochres) and well acted. Like a good novel, I couldn't put it down. All the way through, I wished I was watching it in a cinema to do the music and photography justice. What happened to its release in theatres? I'm an admirer of Chiwetel Ejiofor since I saw him in Dirty Pretty Things, and Hilary Swank looks terrific in this - very female and sexy for a change (possibly out of place, but she adds to the visual attractiveness of the film).

This picture deserves a wider audience than it seems to be getting.
What's an example of a movie review?

I started to take a critical view on this adaptation within the first few minutes but as a dedicated Jane Austen fan I persevered through to the end... However, this is not a programme I would recommend to someone unfamiliar with her work as I don't think it does the book justice, nor makes particularly entertaining television in its own right. There was something about this adaptation that lacked believability - many of the costumes and even the actors did not have an authentic look and I found the acting to be, at times, poor. There is no doubt that the actors were all very good-looking, but this didn't provide enough variety to create really diverse, memorable characters. It was far too static being set entirely in the same location and missing out Fanny's return home, which is one of the most interesting parts of the story. The best actor was Blake Ritson, who captured the wholesomeness of Edmund very well, and the Crawfords were effectively cast too. I do like Billie Piper as an actress, but this role did not suit her and was much better played by Frances O'Connor in the 1999 version who gave overall a far more subtle and convincing performance. Jane Austen adaptations will always provide a love story to leave you feeling good but unfortunately, this is one of the worst I have seen.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a powerful film which seems to have never re-arisen after the Joe McCarthy censorship period. It influenced me as a Jewish teen-ager who had friends of various colors and whose father's family had suffered under the Fascist regimes in Europe during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. Unlike the later rip-off, "On The Waterfront" which seemed to take some of the same themes and twist them to fit the enforced Hollywood political correctness of the time, it told its story direct and with respect for the characters and for the reality it fictionally reflected. It was an antidote to "Gone With the Wind", "Birth of a Nation", "Triumph of the Will" and so many other glorifiers of hatred and violence. I would place it alongside the recent German film (also virtually hidden in the US), "Rosenstrasse."

I remember that the TV version, also black and white in format as well as story, was blacked out by some stations because the black hero's wife appeared white. As a young civil rights worker, it produced a conflict for me because on the one hand I was opposed to smoking cigarettes and on the other opposed the boycott in Georgia of a sponsor of the TV show, a major tobacco company (I no longer remember which one -- does anyone else?).

I would love to find a CD of either the film or the TV show to let my sons see something that informed my opposition to racism universally (as opposed to only fighting racism against Jews) and recognition of the inherent connection between racism and militarism.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in "After the Funeral," produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have that much to do with what Christie wrote.

In this episode, Poirot is asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death - a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery, lots of secrets, another will and murder.

The story is excellent with rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist. Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's effective nonetheless.

I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on Broadway in "Amadeus." Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all I see IS Poirot.
What's an example of a movie review?

If there's one thing I've learnt from watching George Romero's Creepshow, it's that if you stumble upon an mysterious old crate that someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to hide, just leave well alone: there's probably something nasty inside.

Obviously, Professor Gordon Crowley, Robert Englund's character in 'Jack Brooks, Monster Slayer' isn't a Romero fan, 'cos he busts open the old wooden box he finds buried in his yard, only to discoversurprise, surprisean ancient demon that possesses his body (initially causing him to eat and vomit rather a lot).

When the demon eventually erupts from Crowley's body during chemistry class and begins to transform the students into hellish, flesh-tearing beasts, it's up to plumber Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) to try and stop the foul creatures, armed only with a length of pipe and fuelled by a lifelong hatred of all things monstrous!.

The DVD packaging for Jon Knautz's low-budget monster flick promises one hell of a fun ride, offering cheesy thrills and spills of the kind one might expect from your average 80s creature feature (toothy critters, rubber monster suits, gruesome gore, and absolutely no CGI!)and for the last 15 minutes, that's exactly what viewers get: non-stop splattery effects; a silly, tentacled Jabba-style demon thingy; and mucho macho monster mashing!

It's a shame, then, that the rest of the film's running timea massive 70 minutes or sois mostly spent following Jack as he goes about his boring, everyday business: plumbing, visiting his shrink, going to chemistry class, and upsetting his girlfriend. If you think you might enjoy a film that focuses primarily on coping with childhood trauma and anger management, buying spare boiler valves from a hardware shop, and the chemical properties of Sodium, then this is the film for you; but if it's a massive dose of monster mayhem you're after, then I'd advise looking elsewhere!
Determine the sentiment:

Strange but acceptable mob comedy that has an undercover FBI agent (Matthew Modine) flirting with a mobster's concerned widow (Michelle Pfeffier) to tie two murders on a elusive mob boss (Dean Stockwell).

The movie shows that it doesn't have to go over the top just to be funny and director Jonathan Demme ("The Silence of the Lambs", "Philadelphia") keeps the movie from looking like it being was restrained. That's good and it avoids being predictiable, too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

What a great movie this was. Is it heaven? hell? or something in between? I disagree with many reviews of this movie saying that this is a depiction of hell. It is not even clear if the opening scene starts the movie or is a flashback from the end. Further, it is not clear that the main character goes to hell, but perhaps someplace in between. The review I read on IMDb says this is hell, but I disagree whole-heartedly. Take into consideration that perhaps good people who commit suicide may not be condemned to hell...this only one religious belief. This is indeed a thinker, and I have/would recommend it to anyone who likes that type of movie. Definitely worth it!
I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.

I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.

Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.

Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.

I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.

Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco.

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

positive
I'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being "edgy", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.

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

negative
I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better. 

The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named "crash landing" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate. 

Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.

And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

"Son of the Mask" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen "Because of Winn-Dixie" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first "Mask" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.

Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.

Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved "Scary Movie" and "Anchorman", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, "Son of the Mask" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.

The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original "Mask" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.
What's an example of a movie review?

I have to admit that I approached this movie with a sense of expectation and dread. Louis de Berniere's bestselling novel is one of my favourites and anyone who has read it will realise that there is no way in hell that any screen adaptation can be 100% faithful. 

All the way through I found myself convincing myself that the movie was unsuccessful, and had stripped the book's plot back so far as to render it redundant. The ending, however, is much better than that in the novel, and I could not stop thinking about the movie afterwards. Still, the plusses (John Toll's magnificent cinematography, Stephen Warbeck's great score, etc) I felt did not outweigh my initial negatives (Cage's miscasting, a heavily diluted script).

But, two days later, I was queuing again to see Corelli, and although not perfect, I have to admit now that the movie is the best anyone could have expected. Cage is actually brilliant in a role that even de Berniere was concerned was not a fully rounded character: his carefree spirit which gives way to shattered remorse is spot on, and complements the superb double act of Penelope Cruz and John Hurt perfectly. David Morrissey is quietly effective as Weber, the Nazi officer trying to reconcile his feelings for his newfound Italian friends and his inbred superiority complex to those around him. And the fine Greco-Italian supporting cast bring de Berniere's sundrenched world of Cepholonia dazzlingly alive.

On leaving the cinema second time around, I finally let go my passion for the novel which prevented me from fully appreciating the story of WW2 Cepholonia in cinematic terms. My hat goes off to John Madden who, despite the almost expected critical drubbing he is receiving from the British critics (any director who has had a major success like Shakespeare in Love behind them is always a target for these moaning ninnies!),has managed to transfer a terrifically difficult book to the big screen with such heart, verve and humanity (the core virtues of the novel, in fact) that he has created another classic love story that will probably only be fully appreciated when the dust has settled a few years from now.

If you are a fan of the book, like me, it's hard, but try not to make the same mistake on your initial viewing. Try to erase the book from your mind for two hours, bathe yourself in the glorious Mediterranean atmosphere, and discover Corelli, Pelagia, Mandras, Dr Iannis, as if for the first time (pretend you're watching something made from an original screenplay), and I guarantee you won't be disappointed. 

In fact, you'll be eagerly waiting to own your own copy of this delightful movie on video or DVD.

8/10
A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.

My Grade: D- 

Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer 

Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Lost has been one of the most mesmerizing and thrilling experience I've ever seen. Not only it's the mother of coincidence, but also every time that you think you can set up the whole puzzle in your head, the story takes a completely new direction.

Take this casualty for example, The US marine, whom gives Sayid the way to become a Torturer, Is Clancy Brown, playing a character named Joe Inman. In the last episode, he is playing Kelvin Inman, the Desmond partner in the Hatch. Destiny, uh? Yeah Right!

I guess that all of us will have to wait, to see what's next in the life of the wonder people in that strange island, in the middle of nowhere. Knowing that several of my favorites characters, Desmond, Sayid and Mr. Eko, have an unclear destiny

I believe that along with 24 and The Shield, this is one of the best TV shows ever, of course, keeping Twin Peaks at a special place.
What's an example of a movie review?

Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.

If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).

So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.
Gilmore Girls is a hilarious show with never ending sarcasm, wit, and charm. At age 16 Lorelai Gilmore gave birth to Rory Gilmore. She left her parents house and got a job. Now, Lorelai and Rory have a relationship that many mothers and daughters envy. They are best friends. The girls have an extensive knowledge of movies, and TV shows, and are constantly quoting them. In the first season, Lorelai needs money to send Rory to Chilton ( a very highly rated high school), so she reluctantly has to turn to her parents. They are happy to give them the money, but in exchange, Rory has to come have dinner with them every Friday night. I highly recommend this show. I love it!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!

This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.

The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.

From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.

There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.
Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.

Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.

2/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.

First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.

Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.

On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative