cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.

Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.

Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.

I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This movie is so awesome! I loved it, it was really scary. I love the Scream movies and all horror movies and this one ranks way up there. It probably helped that I watched it at midnight. If you want a real scare rent this one! 10/10
Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.

By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.

I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.

Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box / marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he "pulled" himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet pointand did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor / performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.

As to the unfortunate (yes"tragic" would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for longassuming it ever made it into VHS / DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as "The Regard of Flight" are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.

Oh, yeahour local library did get a copy of "The Regard of Flight." And yesit was stolen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.
This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star. 

This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I tivo'd this on Turner Classic just because it was pre-code and sounded interesting. When I got around to watching, I noticed that the "critique" gave it one and a half stars on a four-star scale. I started watching with trepidation -- even old movies can be bad movies -- but I quickly got engaged in the story and Mary Astor's performance as the business brains behind a simple salesman's rise to success. Not a truly great movie -- too predictable -- but certainly better than advertised. And I would have liked to have seen more of Ricardo Cortez as the man who appreciates Mary but won't give up his wealthy wife. I'd recommend giving it a look just to appreciate Astor and what a long way we've come, baby.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Yes, I am ashamed to admit it, but this show is positively DEVINE!!!It's so entertaining, and I have the absolute greatest time watching it.Ever since Cycle 1 it's been great, and I haven't noticed a downfall in it's glory AT ALL.Tyra Banks as you know is the host, and as fabulous as she is, there's also the other judges and co-hosts such as J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, Nigel Barker, and Twiggy.The main point of the show is for every girl invited to become America's Next Top Model, has to work their way up to the top by completing and winning photo shoot competitions.It sounds great already doesn't it, and let me tell you IT IS GREAT!!!!!It's awesome watching all the different kinds of photo shoots the girls take, and each one is different, cool, and daring.Anybody who hates this show, doesn't have a clue, and I will tell you that this show will be on for a LONG time, so DEAL WITH IT!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from ****
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented. 

It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, "The Sonny & Cher Show," With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of "insult humor" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as "specialty" acts! 

The "hybrid" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no "Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin," and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris "Gong Show." 

The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from "SCTV" (it was borne from the MTV series, "The State," after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But "Viva Variety" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're "cute." This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the "divide and conquer" technique is the best way to get their parents to "cave." The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.

Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.

This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.

I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.

The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.

The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I saw this film as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories...
What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.

Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...

Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.

A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.

Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.

The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.

Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.

There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?

I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.

But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.

And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Perhaps it's just the format of this film, a documentary, but I believe that the movie would have been much better served by good actors and more solid dialogue. The fact that the actors are also the business owners is a double-edged sword. They know better than anyone else the emotions and complexities of the business they were in, but, since they are not professional actors, they do a very poor job of conveying those emotions and the documentary suffers. There were some truly memorable scenes in this movie and lots of good lines but they were delivered so poorly that they will fade away with time and the only memory I will have of this documentary is that it had some good scenes which I can't remember. 

Watch this if you want a first-hand account of the .com bust and see what happened to the 99% of people in the industry who didn't become instant millionares. However, be prepared for some nauseating camera work, poor acting, poor dialogue, and an overall bad movie that epitomizes the era of the Internet boom.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

A stunning film which brought into the open so much about disability that generally makes people afraid. It showed how minds can be captured by less than willing bodies and how difficult it must be to witness things happening to others that are wanted for the disabled individual.

Love, friendship, fear, frustration, joy, humour and so many others things were so well captured. The 2 lead characters were very well played by the 2 able bodied actors and invited your laughter, tears, concern, joy and dismay.

I approached this film with a mixture of interest and trepidation worrying that it might be too much a play for sympathy or dwell only on negatives. It was however a beautifully crafted story of 2 friends.

I loved it.
Write a negative movie review.

the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).

The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.

For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.
Determine the sentiment:

I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial debut.

I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of reactions.

This film depicts real life like people with real life like situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the film)

It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets).

I really enjoyed it. Well worth the rental or the purchase.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.

This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.

Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.

That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.

As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.

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

negative
Well, I set out with a few friends to see this movie, we went an hour before the show started to get good seats. So as you can probably imagine we where exited to see this movie :). But that excitement soon turned to horror, this movie is a complete failure, it just try's to hard to be funny that its sad, the script is poorly written and relies to heavy on the actors to make up for it...

The only good acting in the whole movie was from Stefan C. Schaefer who was great, the plot was weak and even the "funny" scenes felt forced and unnatural, considering that the main actors are some of Iceland's best comedians it's well special...

I would not Recommend this movie to any one, because it try's to hard and never really delivers.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).

The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).

The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).

The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.

This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.

Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!

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

positive
For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror." 

It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.

Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.

They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.

Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...
Write a positive movie review.

I watched this show until my puberty but still I found it to reflex many situations that worry us when we're teenagers although it was a family oriented show. Until the mid 90's it focused more on the young adults and their situations.

That's why I loved "Step By Step". I mean, it offered situations for every age and unlike many shows of it's kind, it delivered expectations.

Let's be honest; this wasn't an extremely funny show, no, but it had some situations that you could feel related to but only funnier.

There was an extremely good charm between Patrick Duffy and Susan Sommers. Duffy rocked! Sommers was tender and actually funny. I was in love with Stacy Keegan because she was extremely sexy (loved her legs) and witty. But Sasha Mitchell stole the show with his Cody character. He was the man back in the day! Oh, the memories. Nowadays, this show wasn't been able to adequate correctly on the new generations and that's why it should be kept in the vault of memories. That's it, only memories.

Thank you Step By Step for making my puberty funnier.
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: 

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding.
What's an example of a movie review?

For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany.
When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This film has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: After seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of "Wired" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of "Wired" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.

The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with "Angel," a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.

The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.

I believe this was supposed to be an "artsy" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.

Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.

There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.

On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.

SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of "Man on the Moon," which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a "moral" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!

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

negative
I was enchanted by Niami's debut. I hope that we'll soon see more of his work. I was lucky enough to catch the film during its brief NYC run and it struck me as a worthy successor to such downtown 80s flicks as Desperately Seeking Susan and After Hours, but with a gentle European whimsey that made it fresh and fun. A strong ensemble cast playing mostly against type was a pleasure. And I thought the complexly inter-threaded plots were just right. Sandra Bernhard puts in her best performance since King of Comedy, while Peter Stormare is hilarious, and Ling Bai touching. See it.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.

Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.

Cheers
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Its the best movie I have seen in 2000, it has the beautiful and talented Natalie Portman in it. It has a great storyline, cast and soundtrack. I enjoyed it very much. 10 out of 10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: One of the BEST movies I have seen in a very long time. Bechard has a way of looking at things that is completely unique and this movie does not disappoint.

This movie has you guessing throughout, and with the seemingly taboo topics addressed it keeps you glued to the screen. There are no bad guys or good guys, Bechard makes sure of that. The characters are so perfectly complex you feel for each of them, you care about what they have been through.

Bechard's use an attention to details is unmatched in this world of "FAST FOOD MOVIES" and while some of the topics may make some uncomfortable - you love the feeling it gives you.

I have heard it said too often that there are no NEW stories to tell. Thank you Gorman Bechard for proving that false.

Run, don't walk, to see this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Being a great fan of horror, especially Asian horror, I have seen tons of movies, but this one is outstanding. Why? It does have a plot (which is unfortunately quite rare among horror movies). The actors did a good job. It feels like a real documentary film (even if it's not). It does not get boring for a moment. The director cleverly combines the plot with the acts of a certain Japanese magic cult (perhaps this cult never existed, but still, it's believable). It reminded me of the similarly great movie "Forbidden Siren".

To me the one and only annoying thing about the movie was the character Hori, the psychic, but this is subjective.

I recommend this movie to all fans of quality horror.

9 out of 10.