cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

A whole lot of the people that have seen this are confused, obviously. The original title of "Cottonmouth Joe" would've put things into better perspective for much of the viewing audience. I have personally experienced the condition of cottonmouth (often accompanied by a really bad hangover after a weekend bender) and it is indeed a lot like the movie Skeleton Man -- a dry, scummy film that provokes regret for recent choices and begs for a hot shower.

It is unfortunate that the choice of "Skeleton Man" for the title was finalized by the distributor (probably the work of some meddling Hollywood no nothing studio exec who just didn't get it) and not "Cottonmouth Joe." Those of us who have seen the film know that the Skeleton Man is actually Cottonmouth Joe (a skeletal-manish apparition, not a true Skeleton Man). The deception of the folks marketing this film is unforgivable, and for that alone, I cannot give this film a high rating. Imagine this: when future filmmakers get together to create the true definitive Skeleton Man movie and need a title, they will be totally screwed and we are all, as serious fans of the genre, diminished for that.

Cottonmouth Joe could've become a horror movie icon right up there alongside Madman Marz, Black Claw, Mansquito, Humongous, "Nature Boy" Billy Conners, Morty the wooden doll, the Boogen, Eegah, The Moon Beast, Bloody Bill, the Driller Killer, Mickey Rooney, and so forth, but he will always be remembered as a sword wielding-caped-tackle dummy skull face-tied to the side of a horse-skeleton man wannabe.

That's too bad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you like movies that will make you think, this is absolutely one of the good ones. I always liked David Lynch and Cronenberg. They have always made high-quality movies.

Iain Softley has directed K-PAX brilliantly. The movie tears in feelings and philosophy of the mind and world. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges both delivers superb acting skills. It caught me, I did not take my eyes away from the screen during the movie. On the other hand, if you are hoping for a special effect sci-fi movie, this is not for you. The story is being dragged a bit, which can be a bit boring, but also works as a way of building up the theme of the movie.

 Enjoy this film, I did..
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First off i'll give this movie a low scoring 4 out of 10! It was nothing more than a wannabe film. I felt very let down watching this film. I was lead to people it would be more drama and more facts about the true story it's based on. Instead i spent over an hour watching middle aged mean break the law and take drugs.

It's abit like football factory but with no real storyline and not a good ending. After watching the film i was left wondering "What was that film all about?" If you like films with no real storyline and a lot of drug taking and swearing then this is the film for you.

I'm a BIG fan of mob and gangster movies but this film did not live up to the hype. I can see where the writer was trying to go with the film but it never reached it's destination.One of the worst British films that i have ever watched. If only the movie had more of a storyline this would have bad an excellent movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.
Write a negative movie review.

The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10
Attractive husband and wife writing team Robert Wagner (as Joel Gregory) and Kate Jackson (as Donna Gregory) arrive at the spooky mansion of actress "Lorna Love" (actually, silent film star Harold Lloyd's house). Mr. Wagner and Ms. Jackson are contracted to write the silent movie star's biography. Wagner has a personal interest in the project, since his father was once the famed star's lover. Mysterious events unfold, and Jackson must fight to save her husband from the spirit of the beautiful blonde, who is "perfectly preserved" in a crypt on the estate; moreover, the evil woman seems bent on possessing her husband, and murdering Jackson! 

This is very much a "Night of Dark Shadows" variation, co-starring genuine "Dark Shadows" alumni Kate Jackson, who knows and plays her part well. Robert Wagner lacks David Selby's intensity. Sylvia Sidney (as Mrs. Josephs) sidesteps Grayson Hall. Marianna Hill is not a match for Lara Parker (or Diana Millay). Bill Macy (as Oscar Payne) is good in a part that would have been played by John Karlen (in a Dan Curtis production).

There are smooth cameos by Joan Blondell, John Carradine, and Dorothy Lamour. Ms. Lamour's delivery resembles Joan Bennett, which begs the question: why didn't producer Aaron Spelling get more of the original "Dark Shadows" regulars? 

Director E.W. Swackhamer was Bridget Hanley's husband; he worked with Ms. Blondell on "Here Come the Brides", and with Jackson on "The Rookies". "Death at Love House" has, arguably, a tighter storyline than the "Night of Dark Shadows" film; it differs in the movie star angle; and, in its "Father Eternal Fire" ending, it more closely resembles the TVseries' "Laura the Phoenix" storyline. 

**** Death at Love House (9/3/76) E.W. Swackhamer ~ Robert Wagner, Kate Jackson, Sylvia Sidney
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!

The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.

Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.

While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.

I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.

And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.

I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?

In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I loved this film! Fantastically original and different! A solid, intense, hard-core and suspenseful movie that has just the right touch of (dark?) humor. If you're tired of the typical, overdone, ridiculous Hollywood B.S. movies, how many big explosions and awful and unrealistic shoot em up gun fights that insult your intelligence can we take, then this film is for you. Fantastic characters that are wonderfully original and believable, and solid performances by all actors, not a weak character or performance in the film. Skip Woods' film is a breath of fresh air and I applaud his originality and efforts, his film has the feel of a cross between a Quentin Tarantino and a Cohen brothers film (not a bad mix at all in my opinion). This movie grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go, there's nothing boring or bubble gum about this film. The only disappointment is that nobody seems to know about it, everyone I've recommended it to has thanked me and shared my opinion on it. This film is a welcomed change/alternative from the canned Hollywood mainstream garbage being produced today, even with their big name actors, big explosions, special effects and huge budgets. It's a terrifically wild, intense, violent, graphic, humorous and raw (I mean that in a good way, no phony Hollywood polish here) ride. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film happen, you did an incredible job!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: "He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour." The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.

"Strangers on a Train" is probably one of the best in his "wrongly-accused" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.

Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.

Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.

"Strangers on a Train" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.

The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an "i'll-get-you" smile.

The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).

"Strangers on a Train" is easily one of Hitchcock's best "wrongly accused" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.

<< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>>
Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.

Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.

J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.

Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.

And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.

The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The Elegant Universe brings to light many ideas of the universe and existence. After watching this documentary, one can't help but take a step back and rethink their view on the existence of everything. There is a large cast of scientists, mathematicians and others on both sides of String Theory. It is continually brought into question as untested, untestable, and possibly dead wrong. The closest to proselytizing that anyone does is to explain that Quantum Physics, the set of mathematical ideas that give extremely good approximations of what happens to sub-atomic particles, has never made an incorrect prediction. Not so with String Theory; no one is willing to say, on-camera, that String Theory is the truth, and in so doing, the piece retains a certain respectful distance from the subject.
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.

The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.

Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.

Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.

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

negative
Definitely a movie for people who ask only to be entertained and who do not over-think their movies. 

Lots of action, lots of great dialogue (e.g. fun to quote), a little intrigue, and stuff blowing up all over the place. Samuel L Jackson and Geena Davis had great chemistry. Violent, but not gory. The fact that the female part was the competent action lead is a pleasant turn-about.

Have seen the movie more than a dozen times and still enjoy it enough to put it back in my favorite films rotation every 3 or 4 months. I initially rented the movie because Samuel L Jackson was in the film, but was caught up in the events surrounding Samantha's quest to regain her memory and have never looked back.

All you cerebral folks out there -- suspend disbelief for once, take yourself a little less seriously -- you might actually enjoy yourselves!

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Naturally Sadie sucks big time, I have no idea what the people were thinking about when they wrote this garbage. This is not funny, its not cute in any way shape or form, its just disturbing and a waste of money. Sadie is such a bad actor. I lost all my brain cells watching this show, it honestly seemed that this show is forced, it was such a huge over hyped pile of crap.

This show sucks.

Its a waste of time, and money, don't bother watching this garbage. The characters are so stupid and ridiculous. In the first season its just dumb and stupid then when i saw the second season i just couldn't take anymore, it made me want to kill Charlotte Arnold. The second season is juts absolutely a disgrace to Disney This show is also a racist piece of sh**
A fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Victor Sjostrom, who is the grandfather of Swedish cinema, directed this stark, existentialist film about atonement, betrayal, death, forgiveness, guilt, redemption, and the bleakest moments of the human condition. He stars as David Holm, a no good-nick who responds to a moment of kindness by returning to his drunken ways, only to later have to bargain for his soul with the driver of the phantom carriage: death.

Unlike many silent films during the period, the film is nearly absent scenes with over-acting. The pacing does becomes tedious with its overly familiar Dickensian narrative. However, examining the film in retrospect and in comparison to others of its time, it's a very daring and unique film. Audiences of the time were not exposed to such subject matter, and the cinematography is tremendous, symbolic, and accompanied by double exposure effects and multi-layered flashbacks. It's a genuinely creepy and frightening film for youngsters for sure.

Watching the film, it's easy to see the later influences this film had on Swedish master Ingmar Bergman. Most of the great Bergman themes are here on full display. Sjostrom, of course, later starred in Bergman's masterpiece on alienation and loneliness: Wild Strawberries. This would be Sjostrom's final performance as an actor. Sjostrom based the script on a novel by Swedish writer Selma Lagerlof. *** of 4 stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Perhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late "bandito" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with "Love Is Where You Find It" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.
Write a negative movie review.

MGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's "battle" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called "The Hot Chocolate Soldier". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?
This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.

But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.

Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end: 

1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.

2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.

3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.

For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.

These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

"Graduation Day" is a result of the success of "Friday the 13th." Both of those films are about creative, bloody murders, rather than suspense. If you enjoy that type of film, I'd recommend "Graduation Day." If not, I wouldn't. There's nothing new here, just the same old killings.

Even though I've given the film a 4 out of 10, I will say that it's not a repulsive film. It is watchable if your curious about it, just not creative.
I wanted to see this movie because I liked "Kavkazskij Plennik" ("Prisoner of the Mountains") and "Brat" ("Brother") with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and "Vor" ("The Thief") with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, "The Quickie" was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of "f**ks" in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film.
Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:

American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!

Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings? 

Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.

And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.

Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.

OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I enjoyed Oceans 11, I thought it was quite enjoyable, helped by the performances and the direction. However, I was disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it is not a complete dud, thanks to the stellar performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Clooney and Matt Damon especially and the efficient direction from Steven Soderbergh. However, the film really does suffer from truly lethargic pacing, some of the film was so slow I almost fell asleep between one key twist. Second, the plot is very convoluted and there are many twists and turns that makes it hard to keep up. The camera work wasn't as innovative as it was in the first movie either. Whereas in the first movie, it was smooth and professional, it was jerky and awkward here, and the music wasn't particularly memorable. The screenplay also wasn't as witty or as fun, and the film felt anti-climatic. At the end of the day it all felt a bit too lazy, despite the expert playing and direction. So much potential, but really a missed opportunity. 4/10 Bethany Cox
What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.

To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.

This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.

Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.

If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

first real movie in this year. amazing long shots, sometimes with fix camera, so specific for Nordic cinema (let aside Dogma). A true auteur film I find it. Athmospherique :-) It simply delighted all my senses and keep in mind how the image goes violent and painful during the scenes when he's trying to kill himself. That's the point I don't think it stands up in the whole plot. Why, if this was an ideal world, couldn't you die but still you were keeping your conscience ? Either was the real world with "tailored" rules or was a "fantastic" world but in this case no accidents like people remembering how it was before can happen.

It reminded me of Kafka and maybe more, of Huxley's Brave New World, especially in that part where sex was actually available to everyone, since it was viewed like a right to pleasure. It lacked a plot but I think it was better like this, since you realized and sensed the whole strange behavior of everyone, the absurdity and the lack of real sensations in this "happy" world.

I think also that the end was brilliant. true world is indeed a homo homini lupus, you're eaten if you are not strong enough.
What's an example of a movie review?

Who said it had to be believable? Do yourself a favor and turn off your ration before you sit down to view this film. You'll enjoy the experience much more. You'll find yourself forgiving some of the movie's more outlandish plot set-ups, and simply accepting it for what it is--a great family film. I appreciated not having to be concerned about "questionable elements" in a children's film for once. That, to me, is worth the price of the ticket. And it manages to maintain its wholesomeness without being obvious about it--older chidlren will enjoy this film. Enough good humor to keep adults interested. Very good film.
Write a negative movie review.

Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.

The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)

I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.

Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10
I was reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: "Revenge") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.

When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.

Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!! 

(I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!)

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The original Female Convict Scorpion is an all time masterpiece. The first sequel, Jailhouse 41, was not quite as good in my opinion, though it's still notable for the fact that it took the idea from the original and created something in a completely different style. Director Shunya Ito has managed to do the same thing again with this film; the story is a bit different here, but still he's managed to take what made the previous entries excellent and better than many films of this type and craft something fairly original around it. Again the action focuses on Nami Matsushima (a.k.a. "Scorpion") and this time she's out of the jailhouse and not too keen on the idea of going back. After escaping from pursuing police officers, one thing leads to another and Scorpion finds herself getting it together with a prostitute and her retarded brother. The prostitute ends up getting impregnated by the retarded brother (...), while Scorpion is kidnapped and caged up by someone who she made an enemy out of in prison. But Scorpion doesn't like spending time behind bars and it's not long before she's back to doing what she does best.

The film gets off to a great start as we see Scorpion hack the arm off a copper intent on taking her back to jail. From there, however, the film slows down a lot and Beast Stable ends up being more of a drama than the previous two films. That's not to say that there isn't still plenty of action - Scorpion still spends a lot of time in 'revenge mode' and the film isn't exactly short on general sleaze. Meiko Kaji once again reprises her role as the sinister title character and it's another understated, almost wordless performance. Her screen presence is great, however and she manages to have a menacing presence despite being only small physically. The plot structure for this film is similar to the other two in that it all builds into a crescendo of revenge. There are more people who have angered Scorpion in this film than in the previous two so this section takes up a fairly large part of the film. There's a few surreal sequences, not as many as in the first film and nowhere near as in the second, but the film stays in with the rest of the series on that point. Overall, I would say this film is between the first two in terms of quality - not as great as the original and slightly better than the second.
What's an example of a movie review?

Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed "thriller"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the "ceiling" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.

Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative