cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This movie is at times a wild 80s college sex comedy, others a sweet romantic one... Then it has moments of serious drama and then sprinkles in dashes of science fiction... It is so uneven its almost ridiculous.

But I would hardly rank it as one of the worst films I've ever seen except of course for the fact that they casted Peter O'Toole.

There is absolutely nothing for him to work with here. Poor dialog, poor performances to work off of, poor everything... And yet he's fantastic... There is not one good thing about his part and yet he makes it work if only on pure charm alone.

The fact that he was so able to achieve so much with so little shines a spotlight on how greatly everyone else in this film failed, making it seem even worse than I suppose it actually is...

If any other actor was in O'Toole's role, I would have forgotten this movie as crap and never thought of it again, but a fine performance by Peter O'Toole despite all odds ensures that I'll remember this film for a long time to come... If only as a film that, maybe, could have been good if anyone involved in it was nearly half as good as Peter O'Toole.

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

negative
Bad editing, bad production values, bad continuity, implausible, bad dialogue... this movies is bad, bad, bad. However, if you want a movie to poke fun at (a la MST3000), this is your movie. I wouldn't suggest spending much money on it, but if you do see this movie, make sure it's with plenty of witty, like-minded buddies.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.

But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.

The problems are many.

Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.

Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.

Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.

What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.

Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.

The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.

And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.

The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.

The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.

But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.

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

negative
Anatole Litvak directed the 1959 film, "The Journey," starring Yul Brynner, Deborah Kerr, Robert Morley, E.G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Jason Robards.

The film takes place during the 1956 Hungarian uprising and concerns a group of travelers having problems getting out of Budapest because of political problems in that part of the world. They are put on a bus to Vienna, but the Russians, led by Major Surov (Brynner) confiscate their passports and hold them for questioning. One of the passengers is Paul Fleming (Robards), posing as an American but in reality a Hungarian freedom fighter, whom the major believes is being smuggled out of Hungary. In fact, Lady Ashmore (Kerr) is hiding him. She becomes the focus of the Major's romantic attentions.

Very good film that conveys the tension and hassle of the Cold War, and all of the performances are wonderful. Brynner is particularly excellent as the passionate Major who isn't all bad, and Anne Jackson gives a realistic, powerful performance as a pregnant woman who doesn't want her child born in a Communist country.

Good script, good director, good cast - there should be more films like this. Highly recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The fact that the movie is based on a true story contributes to a better and, of course, more realistic experience and keeps the viewer focused on the basic theme of the movie. The story is filled with unexpected twists which keeps the viewer at all times from figuring the ending out. In one moment you think that something happens to Coach Jones or Radio. Well it does, but certainly not what you'd expect.

The film becomes at no point boring or too sentimental and the acting performances by Ed Harris & Cuba Gooding Jr. are some of their best in my opinion. The ending puts a long lasting smile on your face and makes you wonder if what you are doing is right. Well I guess that was what Michael Tollin & Mike Rich were trying to do. First-class movie.

Esbjørn Nordby Birch. Denmark.
An stunning look at the ocean and the life in it.

The Good:

The camera work was absolutely phenomenal. Every shot is done beautifully.

It was interesting seeing all the different animals that I could have never even imagined.

David Attenborough has the perfect narrator's voice. No one could have done any better.

The Bad:

There were one or two different times where there was a reference to the Earth being 1 million years old ( I hold a different belief). 

Overall a TV series anyone can enjoy. I highly recommend buying it. 10/10 stars.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

"Atoll K" aka "Utopia" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, "The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.

This movie is one of the un-funniest "comedies" ever filmed.

It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made "The Devil's Brother" (1933), "The Music Box," (1932),"Pack Up Your Troubles" (also 1932), "Babes In Toyland" (1934), "Bonnie Scotland" (1935), "Flying Deuces" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.

But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.
As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).

This film is a "hoot" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).

One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" - kissing, etc).

This is a Must-See film!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?

The answer become less clear as the film goes on.

Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.

This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.

Chris Rock  though as foul-mouthed as usual  is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.

There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz'  then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having a whole Doris Day thing going on.'

This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.

It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.

If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.

The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.

Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public
John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however, that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella "The Dead." 

Once long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, "Doesn't "The Dead" seem remarkably more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?" I tend to think that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave. 

Huston's handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on. Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's grasp in Huston's portrayal. 

To claim that Huston has softened his writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While "The Dead" may be painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man. 

But "The Dead" belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central point of our lives.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.

The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.

HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those "must be seen to be believed" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).

REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.

RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think "P iss Christ" or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.

Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said "forget everything you know about acting" because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Extremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's "Empire", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a "Masterpiece". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for "India Song" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show / movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see "entertaining boring" I watch Bunuel!! Yes "India Song"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get "India Song" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.
Write a negative movie review.

This contains some spoiler information, but the movie is not worth watching anyway...

Why Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson agreed to be a part of this debacle by writer-director Damian Harris is beyond me. The story is full of unrealistic police investigating techniques, which includes going to a party with a suspect and inviting that suspect over to your house and getting intimate with them. The tale also features a male psychiatrist who seems to have nothing but female clients - and he sleeps with them all.

Even more over-the-top is the notion that the female victims to a horrendous S/M crime belong to a large, yet secret, group of S/M lesbian executives.

Full of bad editing and continuity errors, the film is sterile in all of its ritzy locations - including Barkin's detective salary apartment. And the lame dialogue is fit to put one to sleep. 

Damian is a bad writer and a bad director. He tried and failed miserably to create a noiresque atmosphere at times. Furthermore, he couldn't get Ellen Barkin to give 110%. I firmly believe she realized the film was pathetic and gave up trying. 

Standouts were Peta Wilson, who wasted time studying with a Dominatrix for the part. The highly under-rated character actor, Marshall Bell gave his absolute best as always.

And since Damian couldn't deliver on any level, it was hard to feel emotion for any of the characters. 

Most importantly, he doesn't know much about the real world of BDSM and chose to create the typical "Hollywood Reality" of gorgeous men and women who are perverted and dangerous.

Save your time, money and braincells and pass this one by.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.

Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.

Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Honestly awful film, bad editing, awful lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.

The lighting at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's going on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and brightness so I could see something but that didn't help.

They must have found the script in a bin, the character development is just as awful and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this one manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.

The directing and editing are also terrible, the whole film follows an extremely tired routine and fails at every turn as it bumbles through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.

There's not a lot else to say other than it's really bad and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.

Avoid like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this "film".

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

negative
George C. Scott gives his finest and funniest with wonderful drama as well in this Paddy Chayefsky screenplay. Diana Rigg is attractive and quite the complicated young woman. This film veers between tragedy and chaos in a New York hospital of the late 60's with staggering consequences. Barnard Hughes is delightful as always (great stage actor as well).

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = George C. Scott. Chayesfsky was a big blow-hard when he put down Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar ceremony, but he's a good writer. A truly ensemble cast that works wonders, down to the smallest role. This won best script at Oscars and Scott was nominated. He should have won for this instead of PATTON the year before (which he was also brilliant in). Seek this out!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Ron Hall pulls a triple threat as he writes, directs and stars in 'Vampire Assassins'. Derek Washington (Hall) is your clichéd cop-on-a-mission who finds himself up to his neck in some nasty vampire action. Tossing away his badge he searches for the last vampire slayer (no not Buffy!) to take back the streets and vanquish the bloodsuckers back to the grave.

'Vampire Assassins' is a horrible film. It rips off so many other films (can you say Blade?) that it never even attempts to establish it's own identity. The script is non existent. The action is horrible. Who says a micro-budget stimulates creativity? There is nothing even remotely interesting here. You will get nothing out of this except a headache. Stay away at all costs.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.

Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.
Write a positive movie review.

The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.

One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.
What's an example of a movie review?

Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.

The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.

So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3/10.
Determine the sentiment:

I chose "The English Patient" for a history extra credit assignment. I thought that this movie would be incredibly boring. Instead, it has become one of my favorites. It portrays life in WWII quite accurately, and the love story is amazing. The love story made the movie so incredible. I felt this interesting feeling, of passion or something. It made me want to watch the movie over and over again. Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes are amazing actors and the way they played their characters is amazing. The look wonderful together and actually seemed to be in love. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie to watch as a leisure activity, or for an assignment.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Like many situation comedies, "The War at Home" is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Arrested Development," "War" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now "War" is an even better choice.

Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being "mean" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.

One detraction from the show is the narration during/in between scenes. The "Arrested Development/Family Guy" style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.

So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out "The War at Home," especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time.
Like many other commentators here, I went in expecting a taste of music that would satisfy my curiosity - and got more than I asked for. I heard and saw a powerful, exquisite, sometimes haunting, sometimes touching, lyrical, sentimental (in the truest way) and absolutely stunning blend of music and musicians. Reminded me a lot of some forms of Indian music (East Indian) but at the same time was very very different.

Starting from the the first track by Baba Zula to the Kurdish singer Aynur (what a voice) to Siyasiyabend to the jam session (or 'Jugalbandhi ' as we call it in India) in the small Turkish bar ft. Selim Seslar (Big fan now :) ), I enjoyed every minute and wished it wouldn't end.

One of the best music commentaries I have seen and heard in a long time. 

I am craving for a CD of the sound-track and hope I can find it online somewhere soon and also for old and latest albums from Baba Zula.

A day later, the music is still etched in my brain and I don't want it to go away. Turkey and specifically Istanbul now seem such beautiful and exciting places - and I am going to start saving today to go take it in.

Faith Akin - this is a gem.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).

You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.

I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Having read the unemployed critic's, review, I went to a screening of "Radio" not knowing what to expect. Thankfully, the unemployed critic now appears, to me anyway, a frustrated film director/movie critic. His review is callous and totally uncalled for!

This is a movie that will make you laugh, it will make you cry and in the end it will give you a moment of pause!

To paraphrase a line delivered by Actor Ed Harris in the final Barbershop scene "...and all this time that we thought we were teaching Radio, truth is...He was teaching us. He treats us all the time, like we wish we treated each other, some of the time!"

Yes the movie tugs at the heartstrings. Yes it is emotionally manipulative and yes Cuba Gooding Jr. (In an Oscar worthy performance) is a little over the top at times (See the Christmas day dance scene) but you know what? SO WHAT! Every once in awhile the community of America needs to be reminded what tolerance can do for our great country. We need to be reminded how great we CAN be.

This is a solid cast. I was particularly pleased to see S. Epatha Merkerson, portraying Radio's mother, do something outside of Law and Order. I always wondered, is Ms. Merkerson a great actor or is it the quality of writing delivered buy a strong cast on Law and Order. After watching this movie, it is easy to see that she is indeed a very fine actor.

Also joining the cast in small but important and powerful roles is Alfre Woodard as the Principal, Debra Winger in a career-resurrecting role of Coach Jones's wife and Chris Mulkey as Protagonist, Frank Clay.

We cannot over look Ed Harris's performance as Coach Harold Jones. After reflecting on this movie and having grown up in the Deep South my self, It is hard to truly appreciate Mr. Harris and his contribution to this film. As Coach Jones, Ed delivers a quiet, rock solid performance, that of a man on a mission. Coach Harris will not let the town or circumstances divert him from what he knows in his heart, is the right thing to do.

If you see this movie, make sure you hang around for the end credits. You will be in for a treat as the real James Robert 'Radio' Kennedy, now in his mid 50's, is shown, still leading the T.L. Hanna Football team on to the field every Friday night.

One final note. If you were a teen in the mid to late 70's, this movie is worth the price of admission, for the sound track alone!
Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.

1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.

My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.

The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.

Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.

It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.

Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This has to be one of the WORST movies I have seen. I tried to like this movie but they managed to mess up practically every individual aspect that pertain to this film! Cheap dialogue, no character development, no tension, not enough story to pull you in, no action apart from some REALLY cheap scenes. It seems they tried some things on the set and said to each other "hey this looks rather cool, why not put this in there" after which the director probably said "Yeah....YEAH this is genius!" and got back to snorting coke or something. When it comes to acting I think the only person that TRIED to make the movie worked is Daan Schuurmans but in the end it is all for nothing. Cause this movie SUCKS!! 2/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Kramer Vs. Kramer is a near-heartening drama about shocking, drastic augmentations of the two subjects of a failed married couple. Meryl Streep, in the throes of her trademark maternal sensitivity, plays an unhappy stay-at-home mother who feels confined to such a role and within the first five minutes of the film leaves her inattentive husband, in a fantastic performance by Dustin Hoffman, to find another role for herself. Hoffman is dumbstruck, having absolutely no idea what to do with himself, having taken so much for granted that he doesn't know the first thing about getting his son to school in the morning.

Hoffman seamlessly characterizes this husband as such a juicy load of setbacks. He is restless, relentless and impatient, but even though the positive side to those three adjectives should include just the opposite, he is unremittingly fixated on whatever he turns his head to. He's been focused on his career in advertising, and when he is left to raise his son Billy all by himself, chaos ushers in immediately. He's the one throwing temper tantrums and quitting angrily halfway through an activity. After awhile, as he befriends his neighbor and Joanna's former friend, played by sexy Jane Alexander, Hoffman cools his jets enough to understand why his wife left. In the meantime, his boundless energy redirects towards raising Billy and he loses his job.

The custody battle of the title is a brilliantly grey circumstance. Even if the ending is a little unmotivated, subjectified for the audience, the last line and the last shot still have that witty screen writing touch that seemed to diminish after the magical 1970s.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I have really enjoyed several movies by Gérard Depardieu and expected I'd like this movie a lot more than I did. The biggest reason was that I just didn't find the movie very interesting or funny--so, it didn't hold my interest. Also, although he does NOT sleep with his headstrong daughter, the idea that she is lying by telling everyone that he is her much older lover is just plain icky! Yes, I know there is no incest and I know that nobody around them knows he really is her father, but I found that any kid passing her dad off as her sexual paramour is too yucky and prevents the movie from truly being funny. In addition, I really didn't like this little brat very much. Apart from her lies, she seemed very sassy and self-involved. I would have preferred if somehow she'd gotten her "come-uppance" and somehow been punished, as I just didn't like her.
What to say about this movie? A married couple has more then just each other. After playing around for some time things gets more serious. A difficult choice has to be made: continue the old situation or start all over by following the heart. Guess what happens at the end. 

This movie seems to be very low budget. But a good story don't have to be expensive. It looks like a play that has been converted to a movie only by using several cheap locations (at least very little other people visible) more than just the stage, in this one the house. From the first minute future developments are clear as water. Nothing unexpected happens. Sometimes you may think watching a soft porn movie, in which case you know in advance that there's no story. 

I find this movie disappointing so that's explains the vote (4).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice
Write a negative movie review.

I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.

There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.

I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.
This is definitely Nolan's most intimite,and thought-provoking piece. Not to say that Memento or Insomnia are bad,but they were definitely up to more Hollywood standards...while Following is more of an indie flick. The story is very brilliant,and very well developed. Overall...watch this if your a fan of any of Nolan's work,I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it more.

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

positive