cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.

Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!

The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.

As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.

I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.

Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.

Overall avoid this crappy movie.

Save some money.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

From "36 Chowringhee Lane" to "15 Park Avenue", Aparna Sen has indeed traveled a long way. If the first one goes down in history as a débutant's clean sweep the latter will definitely carve a special place as a "mature" film. Until you see 15 Park Avenue you cannot imagine feeling thrilled and moved at the same time. Thrilled to see the director's ingenuity and agility in portraying seriously challenging situations and moved by the sensitivity echoing throughout the film. It is not a movie that merely makes you feel 'tchh tchh, how difficult life must be for schizophrenics', but makes you ask a much deeper question about the reality that you see and believe. Sen has done a brilliant job in highlighting this supreme fact of our existence that we all are, in some way or other, trying to live in a make-believe world of our own, trying to run after mirages called happiness, peace, contentment. Along with the depiction of a delusional mind, Sen's magic has brought forth many little nuances of human relationships as they sustain stress and strain. The fact that at times we all lose calm, break down, make wrong choices, be haunted by guilt, behave selfishly and so on, is captured with extreme adroitness by Sen. She showed the cruel dilemma which Shabana had to deal with all her life, of having to choose between a schizophrenic sister and a normal life with a husband and kids for herself. And in the act of always being beside her sister, always being a strong persona, providing support, making judgments and so on, she unknowingly cut off some of the oxygen that her sister needed to bloom. Isn't this a very harsh truth that at times, in an attempt to do the best for someone, we strangle their assertiveness and end up hurting their self-esteem? Of course Konkona's and Shabana's acting deserves laurels as always because had the ingredients not been so good, the dish could not have turned out to be so extraordinary. Aparna Sen once again made a masterpiece of a movie for those who crave for some "food-for-thought" . Bravo !
How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.

Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.

Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?

On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.

Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you first saw this movie with Mary of the Fourth Form, then it's perhaps possible for the haze of nostalgia to encourage your charitable side. If not, it doesn't stand a chance. The young things' hipspeak is complete nonsense, people may have used the occasional word you'll hear here, but not huge batches of them in sentence after sentence. It doesn't so much date Dracula AD 1972 as blow it to pieces, from the moment anyone under thirty opens their mouth it's impossible to take the film seriously and as for it being a laugh, it's not even a smile. The idea of throwing Dracula into modern times is a good one and worthy of a far stronger script than Don Houghton can provide. The River Thames and Chelsea Male are no match for puppet bats, model castles and terrified extras, but you can't help but feel that with better writing it would have been so different.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

" I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be." Marlow in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can be chosen rather than legislated. "Chosen" is the operative word for Alejandro Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry, and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life, then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those moments in the least dull or uninteresting.

Javier Bardem as Ramon has expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia, who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing disabilityThis guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what women want: love that speaks, not just makes.

I will refrain from mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same.

"A life in this condition has no dignity," Ramon says. The irony is he conducts himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end his life. "The Sea Inside" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for best foreign language film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Good to see I'm not the only person who remembers this great film. I have very fond memories of this movie - seem to vaguely remember back to when I was about 8 and I'd watch the kids TV shows after school (Broom Cupboard anyone?). This was the first and last film to scare me - and the images of the boy surrounded by mist on a hill will stay with me forever! Like most films of this era, it has a happy ending - aimed at children, but with a definite ability to capture an adults attention. The lovely Cornish scenery really sets the film up to feel isolated - and the "ghostly" scenes are simple but very, very effective! I'd love to try and find this movie again - see if it still hits home!
Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).

The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.
you know I've seen a lot of crappy hong kong movies in terms of production and were good. But Running out of TIme was great.

i guess what made it so good was the fact that Andy Lau and Ching Wang, have such great chemistry. The film at first is really fast paced but slows down not enough to even notice which is also good, we don't want to have a heart attack,lol. In terms of plot their is enough of other things going on to keep you interested. Lau has some pretty good moments as he uses make up to impersonate people from the underworld. Also the movie has the best oriental supporting cast since "house of Flying Daggers".

The movie is great because its so unpredictable and leaves you wondering at every corner. Definitely a good rental with tons of comedy, action and thrills pact in to one, 8 out of 10

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

positive
I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

*****Spoiler Ahead*****

I suppose that you shouldn't expect much of a made for TV movie, but this one was especially bad, the plot was a good idea, but badly done, the acting wasn't especially good. And the ending of the film was just terrible. The main character was perfectly normal all the way through the film, and then suddenly when we find out that she was the killer she just turns into a mentally challenged psychopath. It's completely pathetic.

There is only one reason really to watch this film, Yasmin Bleeth, although haven't we all seen her in a swimsuit before ? Don't bother even watching this waste of time, if you want a film about the world of beauty contest then watch "Drop Dead Gorgeous" instead, it's only an infinite number of times better.
Write a negative movie review.

Jack Bender's "The Tempest" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.

Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called "Gator-Man", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.

Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.

-------------End of Part 1----------------------------
Determine the sentiment:

I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.

I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie is a quite fair adaptation of the Prosper Merimeé's novel. In the novel Merimeé himself is a character, Don José is from Navarra (North Spain, and historically a Basque Country zone, they can speak Basque language). They are in Seville (Andalusia, South Spain) and they only speak Spanish with Andalusian accent, in no way they speak Basque, but Carmen explains to Don José that she was living in Navarra. You can believe it or not, anyway this is the book's version, then you can't be critical with the movie about this, be with the book! You have to note are different the novel by Merimeé and the opera by Bizet, and this movie is an adaptation from the novel, anyway in the opera Don José is still Spanish from Navarra, never he's French. Why so many people keep thinking Don José is French? I don't know but I guess because the novel and the opera are in French although is supposed to be in Spanish.

The only important difference between the movie and the novel is that in the movie Don José also kills the "torero" lover of Carmen and in the novel he doesn't (neither in the opera). I guess they wanted to keep the movie a little more gore! I think the movie is quite good, anyway.
Write a positive movie review.

A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...

In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget.
For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.
My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.

WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.

And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs. The absence of color and sound (as in a soundtrack) helps to give the film a more realistic feeling. There is no soft or hard lighting or a variety of camera angles to give the story a charming or dramatic effect. Everything is very simply portrayed as it would be in reality. At times the storyline was confusing, but perhaps in order to give a sense of the characters' frame of mind  how they too do now know what is happening or why. The simplicity of the film made it somewhat boring, but I could understand how the director is trying not to glamorize the story and points. He depicted the harsh and unsettling events and effects of war. In the beginning the characters were introduced and shown as content with the lighter settings and very long, drawn-out shots. When all of a sudden the war struck upon them, they were much darker and quiet with less intimate shots. Bergman did a good job on allowing us to be consumed by the war ourselves and presenting an image of it the so adequately corresponded to war. Although the storyline itself was not too impressive, the content of the film was.

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

positive
This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.

What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
An unusual movie, which starts off with the classic premise of a hooligan who marries a girl who loves him in order to escape the country. But a twist soon turns the tale upside down. Most of the film hits the right buttons: the story develops smoothly, acting is solid (Sienna Miller's drawl is priceless, she really can act!), chemistry between both leads works, and rolling American rural scapes and quirky side characters really make for a good time. The mood, which starts off as light and romantic soon moves into something darker and downright eery at times.

At times though the pace slows just a tad more than we would like, but don't let this stop you watching this unusual little cinematic treat. Alexandre Montin, Paris
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine  it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.
This was Bollywood's answer to Fatal attraction and this is a classic film in its own right. Juhi Chawla was good and so was Sunny Deol but it was Shah Rukh Khan who shot to fame as the stalker. Since then he has become a favourite of the Chopra's (Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge, Mohhabatein, Dil to pagal hai, Veer Zaara and Chak De India). Shah Rukh at first appears to be a villain but then towards the end you start to sympathize with him. The scripting was superb and the songs were chartbusters. My favourites are Too mere samne and Jaadu teri nazar.

After the dismal failure of the underrated Lamhe Yash Chopra fought back with Darr. The dialogues were memorable, the k..k..Kiran dialogue is often repeated. Since Darr Yash Chopra has slipped bit. Dil to pagal hai was bad but he redeemed himself slightly with Veer Zaara, which was far far better. This was Yash Chopra's last masterpiece.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have to admit I had never heard of this movie. I caught it last night on TMC. I thought it was hysterical. I laughed so hard and loved the ending. Image what a Marx brothers movie would like if they collaborated with Salvadore Dali and Malcolmn X and then all dropped LSD.

Funny and edgy are two overused words these days, this movie sure has that plus about 200 IQ points of most comedies today and surrealistic to boot. I had to be up at 6:00 am and watched it until 2:30. I over slept and missed my obligations. Still worth it. I would not recommend renting it, I would recommend owning it. It was that good.

The only warning I have is that so of the references are dated and might not be gotten by younger people. Bare with it and use your head.

I would have to put it in my top comedies of all time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Dominion" is a good movie,but not original.It blends some elements of slasher movie and adventure flick.The setting is wonderful,the acting is acceptable and the film is fast-paced and exciting.Highly recommended for any thriller/adventure buff.

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

positive
I really enjoyed this movie - I like prison movies in general (I'm not sure why -- I'm sure some shrink could make something out of it!) I spent one night in jail more than 20 years ago, and I knew then I would never go back - I got the individual version of "scared straight"! (I did get locked up in an isolation cell on Alcatraz for a couple of hours, compliments of a park ranger, but that's another story!) Anyway, the genre really interests me. The soundtrack, specifically "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, was the perfect backdrop for the film. To this day, I think of "The Jericho Mile" every time I hear the song.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

i was very impressed with this production on likely all levels; from production to plot and character development.

this definitely fall under the "realism" genre, since there is nothing going on here that makes use of creative imagination, twists, or manipulating audience in how a viewer shall feel, think and asses.

the actors are great, especially the "little" ones. the chemistry between the brother and the sister is mind blowing, maybe not even as common as should be in real life. it is a movie excellent to literally watch while visualizing it. one knows when a movie is good when one just does not want it to end, but eventually everything does...
Addle-brained stupidity that the cartoon "Bullwinkle" made fun of a quarter-century beforehand, NO DEAD HEROES proves that you can rip off a good movie (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) without copying a single sliver of quality from the object of your plunder. The acting barely registers on the cable-access TV scale, the plot is less nuanced than an old "Sgt. Rock" comic, and only Boris J. Badanov-style "bad guy" mustaches are missing from the Commies. This movie achieves the unusual feat of being too bad, too stupid to be enjoyed by anyone with opposable thumbs.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making 

It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with 

Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage 

Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing 

HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Jessica Bohl plays Daphne, the sexually precocious suburban teenager struggling with the hell of high school. Daphne's neighbor is Buddy (Richard Brundage), a depressed middle-aged man still angry over loosing his wife. Daphne is attracted to world of prostitution because it promises to cure her of barely legal boredom and loneliness. Once Buddy strips Daphne of her secret, he hires her to help him accept the loss of his wife. The entire film takes place at the Hotel Duncan, yet details of each character's history are exposed through dialogue and flashbacks. Their appointment climaxes with the story's concluding twist.

Both actors truly understand and become their particular character, delivering a convincing, sincere performance. Their on-screen chemistry, critical to the entire film, is genuine.

The film's dialogue is natural, real to life. The writer, Gorman Bechard, undoubtedly did his homework because all references are industry and character-age appropriate. Daphne is intelligent, yet clearly still an eighteen year old. Buddy may be middle-aged, but still not the hackneyed naïve type normally depicted in film. Daphne and Buddy's conversation primarily deals with their despair and frustration with life, but is still comical at the right times. Although the general mood is very relaxed, the dialogue has its own vivacity, forcing the audience to become empathetic toward the character's conditions and uncomfortable at their straightforward vulgarities.

The incredible soundtrack truly captures the essence of the film. Each track commands sentiment, actually contributing to the scenes and characters. Even existing independently from the film, the compilation truly expresses You Are Alone's central theme-- loneliness.

You Are Alone is a less conventional piece that deals with of notions typically not spoken. Definitely worth seeing it's the sort of thought provoking film that forces you to question your own threshold of loneliness.

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

positive
Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 

It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Given that Dylan Thomas is an icon of modern Anglophone poetry I expected a movie that would be prone to a hagiography of the subject. On the contrary the poet is presented as sexually irresponsible, a drunkard, a bad father, a lier and a hypocrite and perhaps a coward. Of course one could argue that all those things are an advantage when some one is an artist and especially a poet since one of the purposes of art is to subvert the standards of conventional morality but still I do not thing that a positive role model could crop up from such a bundle of personality traits. Any way I found the other male hero of the story Captain Cillic a more endearing character. The two female roles were played by actresses Knigtley and Miller and were truly charming especially the first when she performed songs in slim outfit to inspire bombarded Londoners during WW2. Another good point is the role that sexual jealousy plays even in relatively progressive milieus that think that age-old conventions can easily be surpassed.The atmosphere of the Blitz was also convincing as well as the portrayal of the distinct outlooks among people who have experienced war as opposed to those who talk about it theorizing on it's possible political outcomes.I think one would recommend such a movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.

But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him"

I have a new respect for some of the law in this country.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.

Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.

It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.

As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.

The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.

There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.

Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.

As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. "The Professor" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the "what if" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.

7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fiancée because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.
I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.

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

positive