cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Nothing about this movie is any good. It's a formulaic predictable "romantic comedy" geared to make females force their significant others to watch. In other words, it's a predictable chic flick that is neither comedic or romantic and is extraordinarily forgettable. If you like watching the same thing over and over then this movie will fit just perfect. I was also forced to watch this with my g/f at the time and it's no surprise we are no longer together. I enjoy great movies that are wonderful to watch, while she just wants to see the same thing over and over again just with different actors. Nothing good to say about this movie. The title says it all. 1/10 (one b/c I can't give it a zero.

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

negative
I am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.

If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.

There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Starring: Kelsey Grammar, Rob Schneider, Lauren Holly, Rip Torn This movie is a classic family favorite. At least for most members of my family that is. One of us rolls our eyes at the mention of this movie and thinks, "What a stupid movie." I'm not that person though. I still find this movie highly amusing. I just watched it again last night with someone who had never seen it, and I laughed just as hard as the first time I watched it. It's still very funny to me.

Naval Captain Tom Dodge (Grammar) is a bit of a black sheep in the navy. He's the kind of guy who will play golf while on a sub, cracking a ball onto a golf course while they sail past it. He's the kind of guy who will get drunk, pass out, and wake up with a hangover and a tattoo on his dongle. He's not the kind of guy that everybody wants to be commanding a sub.

But Dodge is at the end of the line. He's put in applications to get command of his own sub several times, and if he doesn't get a sub this time, he's headed for a desk job, meaning that's it for naval life. The Admiralty decide to give him his own boat, but they don't give him a new nuclear sub. They give him a diesel sub, an ancient relic from World War II. His mission is to clean her up and take her out on the Atlantic for a war game.

Dodge is obviously a little bit frustrated to have such a crappy boat given to him when he's worked so hard to get to the point that he's at, so he goes and talks to Admiral Winslow (Torn) about it. Winslow explains the purpose of the war game. Diesel subs are still being sold out there in the real world, to countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, to name a few. Winslow wants to know what would happen if some renegade captain in a diesel sub came to the States and tried to smuggle a nuclear warhead into one of the bases. Would they make it? Dodge and most of the Admiralty don't think so, but Winslow wants to know for sure, hence why he has devised this war game. Dodge's mission is to take the Stingray out to sea, then try to evade the U.S. nuclear navy and blow up the American naval bases. In simulated battle, of course.

So, that's about as deep as the plot gets. This is not a plot driven movie. It's a stupid movie that is just a big gag. It makes fun of itself, and you are not expected to take it seriously. If you're looking for good dumb laughs on a Friday night, I'd urge you to check it out.

Bottom Line: 3 out of 4 (worth a look)
Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4.

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

positive
I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.

I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.

Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few "trick" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.

One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures ("He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.

Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.

I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
On the cusp of being insufferable. Somehow I stayed just slightly interested, but was it because I truly wanted to know what the "secret" was (which, I should say, is pretty damned obvious) or because I hoped Scarlett Johansson would put on a more sexy outfit? This movie is poor and what's more it's a disgrace to all the lonely, alcoholic Southern literature professors out there. Travolta wants his Oscar so bad he is willing to cry drunkenly in the bathroom after urinating blood. Sorry, pal. . .you were more believable is "Staying Alive." Not everyone can pull a Peter Fonda in "Ulee's Gold." If you want the against-type brave anti- hero Oscar you have to, um, actually act. . .not just pout on screen. Stop this director before he/she (name is vague on gender) directs again!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007) ** Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips, Jimmy Bennett, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, John Michael Higgins, Jonah Hill, Molly Shannon, Ed Helms, (Cameo: Jon Stewart as himself) Strained 'sequel' to "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" with Carell's jerk anchorman Evan Baxter leaving TV to begin his stint as a freshman Congressional rep has his hands full when God (Freeman reprising his holy role; Jim Carrey wisely avoided the 'calling') demands he build an ark like Noah and the hilarity ensues (or should have). The Godforsaken sitcom-y script by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow is absolutely lame and only Carell's amiable persona transcends his vain Evan into something resembling a human being. The end result is a lot of bird poop gags and overall bloat (reportedly costing $175 M for the CGI F/X). Sykes steals the show as Evan's sarcastic assistant. Sacrilegiously unfunny. (Dir: Tom Shadyac)
What's an example of a movie review?

along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's "stage fright", alejandro amenábar's "abre los ojos", David fincher's "the game" and this one "ausentes" ("absent"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.

furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's "the shining" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.

technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.

and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.
This movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.

Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:

BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.

GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.

BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.

Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!

I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.

Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.

You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.

3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.

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

negative
The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on! 

A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny "ho-ho" not funny "ha-ha" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.

It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is at least very close to a perfect video publication. Messianic metal group, dinosaurs of rock n' roll, biggest and most influential heavy band in the world plays their hit songs and reminisces band's past - what more do we need?

Video starts from "War pigs" and ends to "Paranoid" and in the middle all the greatest and most significant classics of the original line-up are included: "Electric funeral", "Sweet leaf", "After forever", "Iron man", "Children of the grave"...and of course my personal favourite "Into the void", I'm glad they didn't leave it out. Well, how could they?

Still, this video is more than just the music. Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward goes over the group's colorful history. Only thing that slightly bothers me is when a live song is being interrupted with bits of interview. For example, is it that necessary to inform how the song "N.I.B." got it's name, right in the middle of it - one on top of the other? I doubt. It's still a small flaw so it's not too big deal.

Band members also laze around in chairs and chat together: pleasant material for a sabbath fan! I admit I have difficulties of following what Ozzy Osbourne is muttering but it's just amusing. I had a privilege to participate when "The last supper tour" entered Finland and for me personally this video is an ideal way to recall that magnificent show.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film works on a lot of different levels. It's a profile of one very cool couple, a social commentary on aging and nursing homes, a love story, a musical. I've seen Uncle Frank a few times, and every time I watch it I'm not sure who to go call first--my parents, my wife, a friend I've lost touch with . . But it has a way of making you remember the most important relationships in your life--and want to reaffirm the ones that continue. Expect a lot of laughs, and probably some tears if any of the vibrant characters here strike a chord. I'm pretty sure they will.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.

Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.

In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't live up to their abilities.

There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be dead inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the leading man.

There are other dodgy aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine shame as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. There are some good bits, mostly the action scenes themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.

Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hunt for Justice is about the setup of Slobadon Milosevic for his trial in the Hague. While it was a little too clinical in presentation the subject matter could have gotten very depressing very quickly. A Canadian Judge, Louise Arbour, becomes the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the UN in Yugoslavia. She battles everyone to pull out the evidence that sent Milosevic to trial. Not a bad docu-drama with class A directing and production work. The 'evidence' was disturbing by the shear discussion of the facts, happily they didn't go into too much detail and no real pictures of the tortured.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy.

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

positive
Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).

The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched "Pleasures of Sin" because of the high amounts of sex.

The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.

So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.

Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else.

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

positive
This movie is hilarious, bright and insightful. Though perhaps the story would work well involving almost any ethnic group, the inherent Jewishness of the characters gives extra meaning to the bounty of wonderful dialog. There were so many social issues covered in the plot that for that reason alone it would have been worth seeing; -but the real treasure was in the warm laughter that spread throughout the appreciative audience. The medley of complex characters with their various strengths and weaknesses play out their roles with all the pathos and humor one would expect from the Shakespearean drama their lives seem to parody. This is a film about family; - about the often fragile, sometimes invisible binding together of diverse personalities and lifestyles, first among siblings and parents, and inevitably among the larger family of friends and even strangers. The technical aspects of the film have given the movie a pace and development that keep the viewer intrigued until the final scene. Peter Falk is amazing, as always, in his role as family patriarch Morris Applebaum. Strong performances by a fine cast include a surprise guest. Don't miss this movie!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This "film" was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools.
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a FANTASTIC film. Hána is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his "irresponsible" behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodský brilliantly played Hána at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If Hána can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The Long Kiss Goodnight has just about everything action fans want: a witty screenplay by the guy who wrote Lethal Weapon, Samuel L. Jackson, and great action set pieces by Renny Harlin.

Seriously underrated. One of the best action movies ever.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Charles Bronson is back in his most famous role. In my opinion, this is by far the best film of the series and my favorite movie ever. This movie doesn't take itself seriously, because the filmmakers knew that all the social commentary that was necessary was put across in the first film. Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works. DW3 has been unfairly criticized as "trash" and "a weary entry in a worn out series." These statements would be true if the film was made to be taken seriously or to spread a statement, but it wasn't. If you take it as what it is, DW3 is just a fun, action packed romp, with Charlie doing to street punks what we all wish we could do. The action is non stop, the atmosphere is great, and the movie is just out and out the best Bronson flick ever made. You can tell that the penny pinching Cannon group spent a lot of money on this one. It is believed that Bronson thought this film was too violent, and that was the reason why Winner didn't direct any of the following entries. I can understand his concern, but as is always the case of sequels, you have to push the envelope even further to pass a previous entry. In any case, this movie was no more violent than any other movie made during this time. What makes DW3 the best of the series and my favorite film ever (not the best, just my favorite), is the action, Charlie's presence, memorable villains, and it's ability to get the viewers to jump on the bandwagon. The first film may be the most technically well made, but this one is the most fun. For once, Charlie actually has some clever lines (although he doesn't say much)and a halfway interesting story, photography, action, and direction to back him up. Charlie has never been more intense or super cool than in this one. Yes, it's exploitive, maybe it does promote stereotypes, and maybe it is the same story as before, but Bronson's films always have and always will stand for defending the common man and giving his audience what they want to see. Many argue that the DW series manipulates its' audience, my reply is that the movies don't manipulate us, the fans are the ones in charge. We demand that Bronson blow away deserving scum, and in turn Winner and Co. deliver the goods. And for those of you who still want to put it down, remember a few things. DW3 was the #1 movie in America when it came out and was among the viewing favorites of millions of people on video and television because they realize that not all films have to be epics, they just have to be fun. **********/10 You can't get any better. John Batchelor

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The Hell's Angels did come out the losers in this movie. Sonny stated to the director that NOBODY does this to the Angles and gets away with it. His version was the two dudes were to be shotgunned to death, but his suggestion was ignored. They were stoops to even appear, much less be "technical advisers" in a stink-bomb of a movie like this. Hell's Angles on JAP bikes? C'mon! (although in Sonny's autobiography he says, "F$#K Harley Davidson!" and that if they was smart, they would be riding Hondas. (ST1100) Read his auto...he HATES Harleys. Can you imagine the Angels whispering into town on their sewing-machine sounding Jap bikes? Not too intimidating. They would get laughed out of town.
After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.

This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of "Belphégor" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.

Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob 

My Grade: C- 

DVD Extras: none
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.

The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show "UFO," which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.

Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.

Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.

Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:

[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.

[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.

I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...

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

negative
Talkshow with Spike Feresten is one of those shows that will definitely polarize audiences. Either you like it or you don't. Personally, I find most of the bits hilarious, but it does have some "huh?" moments. 

Staples like "Idiot Paparazzi" are always good for a laugh, but my all-time favorite bit has to be the one-off "Hollywood Douchebag". "Comedy for Stoners" is the only regular bit that generally leaves me confused (which is part of the point!) Spike and his team of writers manage to churn out loads of fresh comedy time after time so the show never feels stale. Feresten's brand of humor may not be for everyone, but it's definitely worth trying.

The masses have spoken! We like this show and want more. Please note I am not a friend of or affiliated in any way with Spike Feresten, "Talkshow with Spike Feresten" staff, or Fox network and affiliates. It's just plain funny!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Childish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite "up-to-par" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said "who really cares what goes down beneath the waist." I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Virginal innocent Indri finds herself at a house of prostitution run by ruthless pimp MG. Indri winds up incarcerated in MG's private prison after she refuses to make love to him. Of course, Indri and worldly top con Helga join forces and plan to escape. Maman Firmansyah's blah, uninspired direction and Piet Burnama's dull, talky script thoroughly undermine any trashy vitality this flick needs in order to qualify as a pleasing piece of babes-behind-bars exploitation junk: the sluggish pace painfully drags throughout, there's no gratuitous female nudity whatsoever (the girls don't even show any skin during the obligatory group shower scene!), the expected torture and degradation are both extremely tame and tepid, the moderate crummy gore likewise fails to impress, and even a ridiculous catfight sequence ain't nothing to get excited about. Thomas Susanto's pedestrian cinematography, the laughably lousy dubbing, the excruciatingly overlong 102 minute running time, the sappy theme song, and Gatot Sudarto's cornball score add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Only some decent last reel break-out action offers a little relief from the otherwise overly abundant stultifying tedium. A complete yawn-inducing dud.
Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.

Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"! 

*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I can't believe that I actually sat thru this entire film. A friend rented it because the jacket made it sound good. In it's defense, the jacket was correct; there was a supposed haunted room that someone slept in overnight. From the jacket, it sounded like this was on par with Freddy, Jason, or maybe "The Shining." It couldn't be farther from the truth.

If you are a fan of minimalist and/or surrealist films, you may enjoy it. If you're looking for a good fright movie, or a couple of thrills, go rent Jason vs Freddy IV -- you'll have a much better night.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.

The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.

The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.

Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.

The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.

The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.

I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.
Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in "Spanglish"). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.

It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.

The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.

Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.