cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Possible Spoiler alert, though there's not much to spoil about this film. I saw Project A part II not having seen the first movie. I don't think I missed much. Project A Part Two is not only the worst Jackie Chan film I've seen to date (yes worse than `Fantasy Mission Force'), this film is one of the most unwatchable films the world has ever seen. It's right up there with `Plan 9 From Outer Space' on the sleep inducing scale. The plot is twisted up and knotted like a 50 foot ball of yarn the cat's been playing with and finally left for dead. The `humor' if you could call it that, seems to have been written by an annoying High School freshman, who despite how many people tell him he's not funny, is determined to get his lame humor out no matter how painful a movie is made. And this movie is painfully bad. The plot involves Jackie Chan as a Navy officer recruited by the police force to round up `all known criminals'. He rounds them up in the first half hour of the movie, and I prayed for a quick ending which I didn't get. Why the movie bothers to progress from this point I haven't a clue. The movie drags on and on and on with no purpose, no plot, and attempts at humor that fail so miserably, they make Carrot Top look like a comedic genius. The Kung Fu in this movie is lame, and forgettable. There's better Kung Fu in that movie about the 3 Ninja kids. Project A part II is neither an action movie nor a kung fu movie, it is however a complete waste of the talents of Jackie Chan and Maggie Cheung who have made films worlds superior to this. As Jackie Chan repeatedly escapes certain death, I enter `Blair Witch' mode asking (and wishing) `Is he going to die NOW, so the movie can end? `. An Example of how ludicrous this movie is: Jackie Chan is handcuffed to another man. A gang of pirates (that look nothing like pirates) throw axes at Jackie. Does Jackie grab one of the wayward axes and break the chain on the handcuffs? No! You see that would spoil the `hilarious' gag of him being handcuffed to another person. If you have a friend who laughs at everything, I encourage you to watch this movie with him or her, and watch as even they won't get a chuckle out of this film. If you're an insomniac this movie is sure to put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching Plan A part II. Possible side effects include headache, retinal strain, and death by boredom. 0/9 Stars
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad, frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same time.

It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title "A tale of two sisters" which sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided "You don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it". Said, done. I bought this film and was hooked from the very first minute.

The plot kept me interested from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream. I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad.

Well, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film, doesn't it?
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

i will like to order this movie for the women in treatment. i feel that this is a great movie for them to watch. i can't fine it no were i have been on ebay and all the other website to order this movie. now i am asking you for help to fine out where i can oder this movie at or what to do to get one. i will love to show this movie. yes i was like this movie and a lot of peoples here in treatment in to see how people can change there life around and move on. i think Markie Post played that move very well she is a great actor i love her movies. and if you have any other movie about addiction i will like to order them of the treatment center of women and men so that can look at other people go through what they go through in life.
In this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.

What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

NOBODY (1999) is a fantastic piece of Japanese noir. It's about three salarymen who get in way over their heads when their innocent, drunken cheapshots p*** off three OTHER guys one night in a bar. When these three mysterious strangers, who are up to much more deviant no-goodness than even the film allows us to know, beat the living daylights out of one of our "heroes", the trio decides to return the favour in kind - only they accidentally KILL one of the other guys! The remaining two baddies then begin the systematic destruction of everything these poor schmoes hold dear, including their fast-dwindling sanity. Phaedra Video's DVD sleeve features a critic quote calling the film "A paranoid street crime freakout!" or some such, and the term more than applies here. Brooding, tense, very violent and low-key (but still pretty slick), shot largely at night with many deliberately vague moments and character motivations that keep the audience guessing right along with the besieged protagonists (who, to some degree, deserve everything they get!). I give it a 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.

 This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)


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

positive
Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.

As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan). 

Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife "Bonnie;" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's "Father John Callahan;" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor "Father Nieuwland" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.

What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players. 

There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them.
Determine the sentiment:

This film grabs you from the opening scenes and never lets go. You watch indulgently upon viewing Janos Szaby's excitement over coming to America. He's a likable fellow. You cannot help being fond of him even when his eagerness is replaced by bitterness as his fortunes turn. You know that in his circumstances,you would be forced to make the same choices he does to survive. This movie comments on society's worship of beauty and all things superficial and is only more true in the culture of the twenty-first century. Janos himself becomes victim to this philosophy when he tells his blind girlfriend "you're young and beautiful; if you could see, you would have the world." And like many a modern gangster movie, when her safety is threatened, he extracts a powerful revenge. His innocence is not altogether lost however for he demands an equally high price of himself, knowing he deserves his fate.

Peter Lorre is in fine form in this starring role. Only a few actors could convincingly accomplish this character's transformation from innocent to embittered criminal in sixty nine minutes. Lorre is well supported by all the cast making this a real ensemble picture and not just a vehicle for one star. With a bit less preachy dialogue, this movie would be a 10. Highly recommended.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.
Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.
What's an example of a movie review?

Plot:

- A Chair from EBay

- Random people

- Random people talk (" Dude, it's right. " "I'm feeling it." "Lets get married now!")

- If you are a "hippie" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)

This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!
Determine the sentiment:

When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like "Alice" and "Little Otik," or short gems such as "Down to the Cellar" and "Jabberwocky." All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.

On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.

"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.

If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Two years after leaving the small town of Grover's Bend due to encountering the Krites, Brad Brown returns to spend time with his grandmother in time for Easter. Meanwhile the Krite eggs begin to hatch. As they cause trouble in the town, Brown & the townsfolk, as well as the alien bounty hunters who have returned to finish the creatures must fight the bloodthirsty furballs before they wipe out the town.

The original Critters was a minor attempt to rip-off the family-horror flick "Gremlins". It became a cult favourite on the video shelves & was successful enough to warrant a sequel. This sequel plays down the horror & makes its entire focus comedy instead. Unfortunately the comedy part is extremely clumsy, as well as childish. The acting is on par with the rest of the film. It is just that the film suffers from a weak script. The visual effects are fairly well done.

Grade: D+ Review by M. K. Geist.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

12/17/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given the "changes," don't know the "score," and am not schooled in the genre. I always had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was pretty well limited to doing the basic "keep the tune in mind" and ad lib around that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors' playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was "trying to pass" as much as she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first: later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding "reality" by setting up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, "artier"?--moreso than crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art/craft or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break.
Its a spoof, its an intelligent comedy, it has some a pathetic action and choreography (and mind it, it is intentional), good hummable songs, good performances by the entire cast, brilliant by Amir, Salman and Paresh and over all an script which is so rare in Indian cinema that too in comedy (watch David Dhawan, Harmesh Malhotra etc). Story is of two wastrels whose only aim is to get rich and famous by any which ways. They come across one such way when they find out that a rich NRI is coming India to get married. Rest of the story is about oneupmanship and how these wastrels try to out wit each other. Entire cast is perfectly cast right from Deven Verma till Viju Khote. Songs are rightly placed and are funny. Surprise package is Salman who acts with perfect timing and this particular act gave him his style of comedy.

All an all a fum film which you should not ignore if you like and watch Indian Cinema.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.

every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.

i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.

However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.

Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.

The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one.
This year's Royal Rumble wasn't really bad, but last year's was definitely way better.

FIRST MATCH- SHAWN MICHAELS VS. EDGE Even though this match did take a little too long, it was still alright. Edge wins after using the ropes to pin Shawn Michaels. 4/10

SECOND MATCH- UNDERTAKER VS. HEIDENREICH IN A CASKET MATCH Now I don't really like Casket matches, this match was boring & sloppy but in the end it picked up it's pace as Undertaker nailed the Tombstone then rolled Heidenreich in the casket for the victory. 4/10

THIRD MATCH- JBL VS. KURT ANGLE VS. BIG SHOW IN A TRIPLE-THREAT MATCH FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad triple-threat match. Too bad JBL wins again to retain his title after nailing a Clothesline From Hell on Angle for the win. 5/10

FOURTH MATCH- RANDY ORTON VS. TRIPLE H FOR THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP Great match by these two men, the match was a bit sloppy but it was still good & it picked up pretty towards the end. Even though Orton lost the match was fast paced & great towards the end. HHH nails the Pedigree on Orton for the win to retain his World Title. 5/10

FIFTH MATCH- ROYAL RUMBLE This was a cool Royal Rumble {Every Royal Rumble is good}. After all 30 men entered, the last four remaining superstars in the Rumble were Cena, Edge, Mysterio & Batista. Edge was able to spear Mysterio out, later Batista & Cena clotheslined Edge out together. It was now up to Cena & Batista. First after reversing an F-U, Batista went for the Batista Bomb but suddenly both men crumbled on the outside at the same time. After a controversial decision & Mr. McMahon making his way to the ring to settle the matter. The match was restarted again as Batista & Cena battled it out, but Batista got the better out of Cena, nailed a spine-buster & threw Cena out to win the 2005 Royal Rumble & go on to Wrestlemania 21 to face the Champion in the mainevent. 10/10 This was a very good Royal Rumble, but last year's would always top every Royal Rumble in history.

Overall: I'll give it 8/10 & B+
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Not only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to).
Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.

It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.

This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.

It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.

A very pathetic effort.

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

negative
Homecoming; what a HUGE disappointment!! After reading the plot summary (the dead coming back to vote - AGAINST George W. Bush!!!!!) I couldn't wait to see this. It started off interesting and it immediately caught my attention. Unfortunately, though, it slowly descended into a boring political satire that I didn't need to see (I can just watch some good old Aussie comedy for that!). There was pretty much only one or two scenes of horror and they weren't even that scary. I couldn't believe this came from Joe Dante, who could easily have pulled it off with an equal balance of thrills and satire.

The worst episode so far.

2/5.

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

negative
Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.

This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.

Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!!
Write a negative movie review.

Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?

On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.

I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.

The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Look...I've come to expect this level of acting from William Macy...the guy just keeps putting in terrific performances...but MEAT LOAF? Just when did His Loafness decide to leave Jim Steinman behind and throw his decidedly lower weight around in the wonderful world of Stanislavsky? Well...what can I say? I'm duly impressed. To paraphrase an old adage: "It ain't the meat, it's the emotion"...and the Loaf is quietly buffing up his acting chops of late..

Laura Dern carries off the 40's look perfectly here...great job by the costume and hair departments...David Paymer is typecast but right on the money. Solid camera work throughout the flick. The plot line is reminiscent of "Gentleman's Agreement" (post-WWII anti-semitism). Well worth your time...particularly for the growing legions of Bill Macy acolytes.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

John Schelesinger's career as a film director was extraordinary. We had watched this film when it first came out, but wanted to see it again when it showed on cable recently. The film has a faded look, as one watches it today, but still, it is interesting because of the intense performances of the two principals.

If you haven't seen it, please don't read any further.

Chris and Daulton were two childhood friends that came from upper middle class backgrounds. Chris went to enter a seminary to be a priest, but gives up. Daulton became a small time drug user and trafficker. The two lives seem to run parallel as the pair become involved in an illegal activity that will prove their short sightedness. In fact, it shows how both young men miscalculate in their attempt to fool the CIA and the Soviet Union. These two, in a way, were so naive in thinking they could pull something that bigger, and better equipped people couldn't even imagine could be done.

Chris' motivation is legitimate, as he feels outraged in discovering the underhanded role of the agency for which he works in dealing with other nations, in this case Australia, something he finds by sheer coincidence. When he involves Daulton, we know the whole thing is doomed because no one into drugs, as he is, will ever amount to anything. In fact, Chris and Daulton had no conception of the scope of what they are trying to do, or its consequences.

Timothy Hutton was at this period of his career, an actor that was going places. He had proved he had talent with his work in other films, so it was a natural choice for Mr. Schlesinger to select him, a choice that pays off well. Sean Penn, also was a young actor who showed an intensity, like one hadn't seen before. In fact, at times, Mr. Penn, reminded us of a young Robert Mitchum in the making. Both actors' contribution to the film is incredible. One can't think who could have played this duo but them.

"The Falcon and the Snowman", while not up to the par with other great John Schlesinger's movies, is an interesting look to our not too distant past.
I watched this movie out of a lack of anything else on at the time. Quickly the movie grabbed me with the depth of the characters and subtle plot. I was quite surprised to see that the rating given by my satellite provider did not show any stars.

I will not give any spoilers to the plot-line or outcome but most of the characters had at least some redeeming value. Until the very last minute I did not know how it would turn out. Frequently, you can pick-up the formula and predict a story direction. I could not do that with this film.

I would recommend this as one of the finer films of this genre.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Another lame attempt to make a movie "gritty" and "thought provoking"- whatever the hell that means. They have Al Pacino say a lot of words like - "Television killed football." Yeah whatever. This is another movie that showcases Oliver Stone's Delusions of Grandeur. If Stone is trying to show us that football will be our downfall or something, why does he insist on romanticizing the sport with his stilted camera movements and Kid Rock songs? He even throws Cameron Diaz into the fray for purely aesthetic reasons. It's a shame that Diaz and Pacino have to meet in a movie that is so bad.

Ever since "Scent of Woman," writers and directors have used Pacino to romanticize their pathetic lines. His characters are nothing more than loudspeakers - their voices covering up what would normally be redundant and trite. He needs to reinvent himself, showing how he can act without yelling. He has to stop feeling sorry for hokey scripts with cheesy lessons like "Organized football is messed up," and act out a good story.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.

The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.

This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.

I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.

I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.

Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.

It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).

This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say "Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap.
Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.

Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.
What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".

Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.

"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.

"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.

"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.) 

My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.

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

negative
This movie did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative