cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
An Arab American man is kidnapped from an American Airport and flown to "somewhere in North Africa" where he is tortured. The reason? His cell phone received a call from a known terrorist. The CIA decides to avoid legal means to determine whether the phone call is implication of guilt or just a mistake. After watching this movie we can only but pray some terrorist doesn't accidentally punch in a wrong number!

In addition to the rendition there are several related side stories. One involves the daughter of the chief of intel (secret police?) who is torturing the suspect, and her involvement with her lover who happens to be in night school for suicide bombers. This story is way too contrived, but nevertheless intriguing, especially when we see it's outcome. The Director uses a neat time line switcheroo to hook the audience. 

The second side story is the attempt by the suspects wife to find out what happened to her missing husband. She gets an old lover to help. He (a muted Saarsgard) is aide de camp to a Senator (Alda) and soon gets cold feet when he realizes that his job isn't worth uncovering the truth. Witherspoon is wasted in this role. All she gets to do is look forlorn and pregnant, with one brief rage attack. Streep is good and cold and stereotypical as the govt. (CIA?NSA?Homeland Sec?) official who seems to be a Cheney clone. 

Gylenhall also is wasted as a minor analyst pushed into in area he's over his head in, although he gets to do the "right thing" in the end.

I found the movie engrossing, if somewhat languorous, but thought it added little to the subject. It is certainly not to be viewed as definitive, and it certainly has an axe to grind. Like "The Kingdom" it scratches the surface of a very complicated subject.

The movie tries hard to give us an idea about rendition, but can only end up by being a "cautionary tale" about one botched one. The whole point of rendition is not to "torture" but to get "terror suspects" to give intel by avoiding legal (therefore obstructive) barriers. Torture, for sure, may be employed, especially if the rendition is out of our hands - although we are obviously not guiltless in this matter - but intel that can save lives is vital in this "shadow war."

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

positive
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.

I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.

Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned.

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

negative
Nothing really unpredictable in this movie, but a solid flick in all respects. Everything from acting to cinematography was solid. Not a perfectly linear plot line, but there wasn't anything you couldn't see coming. Perhaps a tad melodramatic at points, but again, a fairly decent movie none the less. Definitely worth checking out. If in doubt of what film to rent over the weekend, give this a go. Though you may not feel like running out and buying it, I found it to be quite worth while.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched the this the other night on a local station because I didn't feel like watching tripe like 'American Idol'. Peter Strauss gives a great performance as a convict named 'Rain' Murphy who keeps to himself. He admits to his crime and makes no bones that he feels no shame for it. His cell is bare of any comforts that other inmates have like books and pictures. The only time he feels in another zone is in running. He does it often and can run a mile in under four minutes. When a college coach hears about this, he wants to prime him for a shot at the Olympics. At first, 'Rain' wants no part of this, but when his best friend is killed, he shows interest.

This is a good movie, period. Strauss is very good (What did you expect, anything less?) and Michael Mann shows hints of greatness that would come full bloom years later. This movie had that bit of realism (probably because it was filmed among convicts). It almost feels like this was a true story. The additional casting is good. There is a lot of notable names like Brian Dennehy, Roger E. Mosley, and Richard Moll as well.

My heart sank when some pompous board of directors wouldn't let him run because he didn't feel bad for his crime. His final act made me stand up and cheer. When they took his dreams away, he took them back hard. This was back when TV movies were actually good. 'The Jericho Mile' is a gem of a film. ESPN Classic, PLEASE SHOW THIS FILM!!!
"Tart" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: "If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else". Writer/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. "Tart" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.

Unlike the standard Swain film, "Tart" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film. 

It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic "Metropolitan" and the camp classic "Cruel Intentions" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. "Tart" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in "Cabaret"). 

In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in "Tart" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in "Girl" to hulking lumpy-faced in "Pumpkin". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made "Tart"; so go the ravages of time. 

Mischa Barton ("Sixth Sense's" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction.

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

negative
I'm not really sure what to make of this movie, especially after seeing a great film like La Notte. Unfortunately I saw this in German during an Antonioni film festival at the Frankfurt Film Museum, so I didn't get to hear Malkovich's great voice. He is supposed to tie together four stories about couples in Italy. However, as good an actor as he is, Malkovich cannot rescue the most ridiculous of the four stories portrayed here: a woman who comes up to him at a waterside cafe near a shop she owns and blurts out about how she killed her father nearby. Then the two of them go home, have sex, and he leaves. It seems as if Antonioni lost the subtlety had in earlier films (like The Passenger) when dealing with sex and replaced it with blatant nudity.

However nonsensical the storyline is, the film features two things that make it watchable: eye and ear candy. The actors and actresses are all beautiful people, and the cinematography is marvelous - scenes in old Italian cities contrasting with a bit in a tall apartment building overlooking a city (reminiscent of La Notte).

The ear candy, however, is what really makes the film worth watching. U2 and Brian Eno collaborated on "Your Blue Room" and "Beach Sequence," both of which set the mood perfectly in the film. The songs are available on "Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1."
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Despite myself, I really kinda like this movie. Pauley Shore is invariably laugh-out-loud funny, and here is no exception. He is just excellent at playing the weirdo with a heart of gold.

His performance in this, although nothing out of the ordinary for him, is so good, it seems to lift other cast members' performances. Perhaps this is because he's the kind of guy it's easy to bounce off of.

The clichés about country life in this movie are hilarious and the way Shore's "city boy", Crawl is so at odds with the way of life, is funny too, but it's not only he who's a fish out of water; comedy also comes from the fact, that to any "ordinary" person or people, Crawl is a freakish nightmare of a person. That's why this movie works in such a great way: we love Crawl, he's a breath of fresh air, but we can also sympathise with the Warners. He is one hell of a culture shock.

Although this movie is classic Pauley Shore, so there's no great brain power needed to enjoy the movie, enjoy it you do, and there's even a "never judge a book by it's cover" type moral here somewhere. Not bad, not bad at all.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much. 

The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.

Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful. 

Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.
This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.

People who should be shot for this film▼

The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer

People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼

Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
this movie is quite bad, aggressive, not played well, not directed well, seems low budget, low quality,emotionaly weak and disconnected. after watching earlier comments, went to see it, but if u try to compare it with apocalypse now, PLATOON, or any others, u'r really off the tracks. this movie looks like a 60's old and purely made film with cast of grown neanderthals, not to mention (or actually do), not paying attention to details like changing rounds, low budget fireworks and all sorts of poorly filmed characteristic. is watchable though, if u'd like to see it as an early development of the movies document.. not to go back!!

p.s - afterall, the guys are quite alright.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie is funny in more ways than one. It's got action. It's got humour. It's got attitude. It's got Dolemite's all girl army of kung-fu hos! And that's just what the movie offers as a film. It's also badly acted by some, the mic makes more than one cameo appearance, and some "punches" miss by feet. But when you make a movie this cool, who's got time to pay attention to those "details"? This movie rocks. Rent it tonight, if you can find it... I had to buy it to see it, but I don't regret it!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

In the Belarus of 1942, two Soviet soldiers are captured by Nazi-friendly Belarusians. In captivity, the attitude of the two men toward their fate differs greatly. One of the soldiers manages to find an inner strength and spirituality, incomprehensible to the other man. Larisa Shepitko's last film is one of the most beautiful war films in cinema history. The cinematography, by Vladimir Chuchnov, is incredible - particularly in the opening sequence, where long, slow, tracking shots depicting the solitude and almost desperate nature of winter landscape in rural Belarus set the mood perfectly. It is easy to draw comparison to Tarkovsky's films, even more so since Tarkovsky's alter ego Anatoli Solonitsyn has a small but important part in The Ascent. The acting is overall brilliant, especially by Boris Plotnikov, in the part of Sotnikov. The film reveals an old-fashioned belief in the strength of religious passion, which feels related to characters such as Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin, or Tarkovsky's Stalker. However, this is not a weakness of the film, but rather one of its greatest strengths. The religious content seems so honest, and human, that it is impossible not to be moved. The emotional richness of the film cannot be overstated; the answer is not as simplified as a short summary of the plot would make you think. The slow development of the characters, and the emphasis on their complicated relationships to each other, are somewhat reminiscent of The Commissar, another great Soviet film. The Ascent deserves a second watching, as well as a third, and a tenth. It continues to provide interesting ideas, beautiful images, and emotional complexity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As one who frequently goes to the movies, I have to say that this has been one of the most impressive movies I have seen this year. Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. gave outstanding performances allowing viewers to get lost in the various emotions and really feel for the characters. It is nice to occasionally see a movie that does not depend entirely upon special effects but allows the characters of the story to touch the human psyche on many levels. I wish Hollywood would produce more movies of this calibre.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What can I say? I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on MTV. I started watching it with every intention of changing the channel if it started to get lame as so many anti-drug movies do but I got sucked into this movie and I couldn't stop watching. Nick Stahl did an amazing job with his character, and in my opinion he really made the movie something worth watching. I was interested in purchasing the soundtrack to the movie (or even the movie itself) and MTV.com was no help at all, but believe it or not Amazon.com is taking pre-orders for the August 5th release of the movie on DVD. I know I had a hard time tracking it down, and I'm sure other people might have had the same problem. I'm buying my own copy so I can drool over Nick Stahl while bawling my eyes out at the same time thanks to the emotional storyline!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better
What's an example of a movie review?

Never posted anything here before, but after watching Noroi I just felt that I had to write down my thoughts about it.

Firstly do not compare this to Blair Witch, this movie deserves far better than that! Simply put, Noroi is (probably) one of the best horror movies I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot!).

I really liked how the movie presents itself not as a standard horror flick, but as a documentary filmed by a reporter (i think?) named Kobayashi and his cameraman. Without spoiling to much about the plot, I can say it that it starts with Kobayashi doing research on a series of seemingly unrelated events, that turns out to be connected to something far more darker and sinister.

While the story might not be that original in itself, what really hooked me with Noroi was the incredibly eerie atmosphere. If you're looking for cheap scares and seat-jumping scenes this movie might not be for you. This movie is all about the mood it presents, with haunting images and a general feeling of foreboding suspense. The documentary style filming just makes it farm more believable.

This is also helped a lot by the acting which is superb, although not perfect for the general part of the movie! Far better than in most other movies in this type of genre.

Well enough ranting from me, I highly recommend Noroi to everyone, it is suspenseful, creepy, well acted and the first movie that has scared me in ages.
Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........

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

negative
I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again. 

The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.

Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The story is airtight from the beginning until the latter third of this movie. Then the story gets more and more outrageous. The Main character portrayed by Marina Sudina is fantastic and had a difficult role. This could have been a super-great movie had the ending been more realistic.
I thought that i wrote a comment on this movie before, but i can't find it on here. anyway, i am writing it again. I accidentally found this movie from my college's library collections. It was free to watch, so why not.

I am certainly glad that I watched it. I love this movie. I have seen a few Russian movies before, most of them have serious topics. I am surprised that this was one a good comedy. I had a great laugh while watching it. and this is a movie that i want to buy. this thing is so funny. and they are not just silly funny, those plots were very original, and well thought, so they don't seem to be silly at all. I am surprised that this movie didn't attract many viewers. This is a classic that you can watch it over and over.

those actors were also very authentic, their acting are real, not faked. if you haven't watched it, go get a copy soon! definitely recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Don't Look in the basement is actually a very clever and well thought out exploitation flick that gets a bad rap because of its cheap quality and bad acting. Sure, it's not a masterpiece by anyone's standards but it is a very fun little B-film with a lot to offer and even a lot of creepy scenes that will stay in your head.

As I said, the acting could have been a lot better but that's the case with most exploitation so I can't really complain. The story is clever and has some great plot twists that will keep you guessing. I thought the gore was a lot of fun too. There's just something great about older gore films because they didn't have CGI back then so they had to actually set it all up themselves. See this one for a good time!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations. And the fact that it was more of an art house movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is the latest entry in the long series of films with the French agent, O.S.S. 117 (the French answer to James Bond). The series was launched in the early 1950's, and spawned at least eight films (none of which was ever released in the U.S.). 'O.S.S.117:Cairo,Nest Of Spies' is a breezy little comedy that should not...repeat NOT, be taken too seriously. Our protagonist finds himself in the middle of a spy chase in Egypt (with Morroco doing stand in for Egypt) to find out about a long lost friend. What follows is the standard James Bond/Inspector Cloussou kind of antics. Although our man is something of an overt xenophobe,sexist,homophobe, it's treated as pure farce (as I said, don't take it too seriously). Although there is a bit of rough language & cartoon violence, it's basically okay for older kids (ages 12 & up). As previously stated in the subject line, just sit back,pass the popcorn & just enjoy.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.

I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.

The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.

Truly excellent, and a must see.

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

positive
I just saw this at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was the most wonderful movie - the best I've seen in quite a while. The enticing character of Isa is an open, exploring and (as remarked in the film) love-filled person - guilelessly portrayed by the beautiful Camille Natta. The accompanying music is soothing and transporting, a balm to the soul.

Each character seems to be conflicted in some way - and their interactions (w/ conflicts) make for a great story. The tale told by A.K. Hangal as the Old Man was most magically done - I wanted it to go on and on.

That Hari seemed to remember his "place" throughout added get power to the story - a refreshing change to the bubble-headed plots of many modern writers.

All and all, an excellent film. Go see.

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

positive
What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.

I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.

Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.



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

negative
The movie was very good when it came out, I attended Cooley High and Cooley upper grade center ,around 1968 i was also home coming queen and grew up and lived in the area of Cabrini Greens, i knew a lots of people in the movie, it was nice to see friends in the movie that lived in the area also, and they had a chance to be a star that may have been a once in a life time experience for them, i had good times growing up on the north side and tough times i can relate to the movie Cooley High is no longer standing but a person like myself and others still remember the fun we had growing up attending Cooley High, there is a lot of history around this north side area to be told .
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
More of a near miss than a flop, MR. IMPERIUM stars Ezio Pinza as Alex, heir apparent to and later king of a small European nation, who falls in love with a willing American actress and entertainer, Fredda Barlo (Lana Turner), but due to machinations by the sly prime minister of Alex as king, nicely played by Cedric Hardwicke, the lovers are separated for 12 years before being reunited in Palm Springs where their love is rekindled. Director Don Hartman, who also scripts, is not able to fully utilize his talent for snappy dialogue because of Pinza's tentative English usage, and the requisite rewriting, coupled with less than total rapport in evidence between the two stars, results in a somewhat raggedy tone to the screenplay, exacerbated by the studio's unkind cutting of many scenes, leading to a confusing ending. The overpowering Pinza dominates his scenes with Turner, but both performers score with good work, while Marjorie Main is impressive with her patter effects as written, with Debbie Reynolds placed on track by Louis B. Mayer for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as a result of her sprightly performance here; only Barry Sullivan is heavily victimized by the flagrant cutting. Prettily filmed largely in Pebble Beach, California, and other Monterey County environs, the film is endowed with Pinza's iron strong operatic basso in Solamente Una Vez, as well as with original songs by Harold Arlen and Dorothy Fields, with Douglas Shearer splendidly handling the sound recording, and notice must be made of the fine set decorations by Edwin Willis, and the effective costume designs by Walter Plunkett.

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

positive
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the "bad" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.

It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about "God" and "Do you believe in Jesus?" It quickly moves into pure religion territory.

I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.

AVOID IT!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

When you think of golf movies, you think of Caddyshack, but what if there are kids around? Go right to this movie! Disney uses is proved formula to make a movie that the adults and the kids will enjoy. The acting in this movie, in my opinion, is quite good and the leading cast, for the most part, is very young! This movie is also suprsingly filmed very well and unique, seeing all the angles of the golf game. I think this movie should be up for some academy awards for film editing or something like that because the entire flow of the film is top notch. Though the ending might be a little predictable, the movie does well on its own! It also shows that you do not need swearing, nudity, or violence to make a great golf movie!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Forget about the plot of this movie. Forget about the fact that it is wonderfully acted by Vince Vaughn and Vincend D'Onofrio. Forget about the fact that it is one of the few movies starring Jennifer Lopez that I can stomach. Although the story made be impossible to believe and much of the dialogue seems contrived, the one and only important thing to remember when contemplating watching this movie is that it contains some of the most amazing and disturbing imagery ever put on film. It is as if Salvador Dali decided to make a crime drama. A must see for anyone seriously interested in cinematography and the use of the film cell as a canvas on which to display true works of visual art. I would have to give this movie a 9/10 for it's amazing visual display.
If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.

I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.

Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clichés, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.

It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.

Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.

Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.

You could easily do without this western.

4/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.

I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.

Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
at the story. It is reality mixed with Americana- and very original.

Emily Grace is a young girl tired of her boring life working at a minimum wage job, in New England. Her sleazy boss propositions her- she quits and takes a little bit of cash from the register. Driving from New Hampshire to Miami, Florida, is not a short trip, and her Ford Escort dies out. She then meets a personable older couple, portrayed by Judith Ivey and Bill Raymond. They have an RV and graciously offer to help her out- it isn't safe for a girl to be alone on the road. Especially I-95.

Emily Grace is very realistic as Alice, and initially lets the Judith Ivey character help her; buy her decent clothes, cosmetics, etc. At first it is a nice vacation for Alice, who hopes to hook up with her girlfriend, who attends college in Miami. There is interesting cinematography, as the trio drives the RV down to Florida: the rest-stops, bland scenery and eventually beautiful mountains of North Carolina.

Eventually there is something awry, and the Ivey character apparently has fabricated stories about her daughter, as well as her husband, who now seems a bit sinister.

I will not spoil the outcome of this film- but it ends positively as the audience waits in suspense- This film reminded me a bit of Spielberg's "Duel"- while it was initially not as menacing- the moral of the story is - you never know what people are thinking- especially if you are driving cross-country. Beware!!. You will enjoy this film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.

On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.

The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.

Grim.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Top gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matinée this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.

Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news.

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

positive