cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?

When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).

Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations. 

I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting. 

Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason! 

And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.

The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.

Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.

Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.

A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.

4/10
Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.

* out of 4-(Bad)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is an evolutionary piece - from Terminator to Robocop .

Stan Winston did the SPFX !

In this film, a scientist working in a sinister robotics company with a really creepy boss(they always are) gets is killed by them in a horrible lab explosion and has his brain placed inside an indestructible robot body .

The rest of this movie goes on with a romance angle as this Cyborg/Man regains consciousness and wreaks havoc while trying to communicate with his wife, played by the gorgeous(back then in 1986) Terri Austin . (He tries to reconnect with his old life, like in that scene in RoboCop)

The rest of this movie is about breaking things, while trying to defeat the evil his evil boss from recapturing him for some ill-defined 'turn humans into cyborgs' project .

This film pays homage to previous movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - - as the cyborg breaks free like the giant robot Gort does .

Except for the 'Frankenstein Suite' designed by Stan Winston, this movie's production values are typically Canadian: SLEAZY ! ! 

Pam Grier stars in this film as an hired killer-commando, a cheap role of the likes she was doing so much of during the 80's .

As for a Sci-Fi Horror B movie, out of 4 Stars, this film ranks about a <3
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Like some other people wrote, I'm a die-hard mario fan, and I loved this game. 

This game starts slightly boring, but trust me, it's worth it. As soon as you start, your hooked! The levels are fun and exiting. They will hook you 'till your mind turns to mush. I'm not kidding. This game is also orchestrated, and is beautifully done. 

To keep this spoiler free, I have to keep my mouth shut about details. But please try this game! It'll be worth it!

Story: 9.9 Action: 10.1 (It's that good!) Hardness: 10 Attention Grabber: 10 Average: 10
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.

While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.

There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.

I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.

In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Great acting, great production values, good direction.

But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.

The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.

This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.

The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie is a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s.

I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of "wonder") are the excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda. 

The stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater, politics, or Japanese history.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a "black movie" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The only critic who counts is yourself. I think this is a great movie. Much better than the original.

In "Caddyshack", Rodney Dangerfield is funny, but obnoxious. He was asked to do the sequel, but things got in the way. Jackie Mason shows the saying that "less is more". He is funny, but a man with real family issues, a more rounded person. It's no drama, but a movie that makes you feel. Actually in some points, you feel sorry for Jackie Mason, especially when his daughter walks out on him.

It has a good soundtrack, and overall, a good sorry. A good end to the series.

In the TV show "Alf", Alf says that he cried in "Terms of Endearment". The wife , Kate Tanner, played by Anne Schedeen, also says he cried at "Caddyshack 2".
Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country. One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely "cells" in a "body" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

My friend took me to a screening of this movie in Hollywood and it was awesome! It's a film noir with amazing acting, great script, cool music, the whole thing was very well done and entertaining. Don't know if it is getting a release in theaters, but this would be a great date movie or a fun movie to rent if you see it at Blockbuster. This is the kind of movie I love, low on budget but big on style and imagination. I hope Alexandra Holden gets more big parts like she has in this one, she is fantastic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. It was based on a silent movie called "Steamboat Bill, Jr." starring Buster Keaton. Back in this early Mickey short, Mickey did not talk nor did he have gloves. He could just whistle and play music. The song that he played was "Turkey in the Straw" using several barnyard animals as musical instruments. He plays a cow's teeth as a xylophone and he plays a nursing sow's teats like an accordion keyboard. Captain Pete, however, is very mad and makes Mickey peel potatoes in the galley. Pete's parrot flies up to the window and orders him to peel the potatoes. Mickey throws a half-peeled potato at the parrot and laughs, thus closing the cartoon. I was able to get this cartoon on tape and I really like it. I think the Disney shorts are much better than the feature length movies.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.
Write a negative movie review.

This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.
The summary is only for those who hate this movie, as finding the movie OK or average is acceptable. Visiting this movie on IMDb has made me nostalgic as I can't help myself going back in the year 1994. I was one of the few lucky ones who saw this movie in theaters. It instantly became one of my favourite comedies and took some years to make it my favourite. How can I say what made this movie my favourite? Was it the excellent writing ( story was OK but screenplay and dialogues were fabulous) Was it the superlative performances? Was it the mood of the film?

After thinking about it for so many years I say it has to be a mixture. It is one of those movies which didn't have any flaws not even its music.(the other movie coming up in my mind right now is Sholay)

PS: Rajkumar Santoshi please keep a balance between your drama and comedy movies. Only 1 comedy is not enough. I want moreeeeeeee..........

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

positive
An extremely down-to-earth, well made and acted "Rodeo" Western. No gussied up stars needed here as all cast members were regular people telling a real life story about a rodeo hustler and his entourage in the 60's and 70's West. But hats off particularly to Slim Pickens for giving what I think was his signature performance, especially given the fact that he had been a rodeo clown in real life. His role went far beyond the mere clown role as he deeply dealt with all the "ups and downs" of the hard-nosed rodeo life and the psychological devastation that so frequently surrounds such a life style. He and Mr. Coburn teamed up extremely well as partners, not only on the circuit itself, but also in the real world outside the corral. Also, check out Anne Archer as Coburn's Native American love interest in the latter part of the movie. Must have been one of her first roles. 

Not as flashy, perhaps, as "Junior Bonner", but equally heart rendering and impacting in its portrayal. Thanks to the Encore Western Channel for showing this true grit of an under-rated movie from time to time.

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

positive
There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight. I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you back to a "Totally Rad" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple. Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.

BUT...

See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.

The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.

From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.

7 of 10 but almost a 6.
The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.

At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.

The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!

the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....

This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Having just got the "Loony Tunes Golden Collection"(which i HIGHLY recommend, by the way), I'm going to try to comment on most if not all of the cartoons individually. As such the starting statement might seem redundant for those whom read multiple reviews of them, for this i apologize.

Rabbit Seasoning is the middle short in a trilogy of like-minded shorts (the other two being "Rabbit Fire" and "Duck! Rabbit, Duck). Bags and Daffy argue about who Elmer Fudd should short. It makes me laugh EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! On the DVD it has a commentary, featurette, & option to play it music only.

My Grade: A+

DVD Extras: Disk 1: an introduction by Chuck Jones; The Boy of Termite Terrice part 1; clips from the films "Two Guys from Texas" and "My Dream is Yours", both with Bugs cameos; Bridging sequences for an episode of "the Bugs Bunny show"; the Astro Nuts audio recording session; 2 vintage trailers; "Blooper Bunny: Bugs Bunny 51st and a half anniversary" with optional commentary with writer Greg Ford & stills gallery
I read the above comment and cannot believe it! Of course its a children's movie, its an adaptation of a children's book!! This film IS easy to get a hold of, try play.com or amazon and its very easy to gain a copy! The jokes are hilarious for kids and adults alike, and the adventure is clean with no violence! Its completely suitable for children of all ages! The songs are fab, and yes, a little repetitive but thats what children need and whilst watching it my little ones were heard singing "hi hi cocalorum" all night! They loved it, a story of innocence and friendship! Very lovely and well worth watching for kids and adults of all ages!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I know everyone said this movie was utter crap and I agree with them. I spent a few years after seeing it telling other people it was crap. I recommended they not see it. But when it came on TV, we saw the ad. I turned to family and said: "I know this is sad, but I'm thinking of watching it". My sister turned to me and said: "Yeah, me too." And you know what? It was funny.

By no means is this a good movie. It's absolutely a waste of time. But it's a good waste of time. You may still think it's crap and fair enough, but I thought it was a really funny slapstick comedy. I didn't like a couple of bits, like when the fish got hit by the car, but apart from that I thought it was good. I loved sitting there and picking out all the famous Australian faces: Flacco, Elle McFeast, Garry McDonald etc.

So, if you like to waste your time, watch this movie. Otherwise, see a drama or something.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.
When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.

The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.

I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.

The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.

I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.

And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to "spoil" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor "Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same." cannot be used as an explanation for everything.

This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.

I give Ghoulies IV a 9/10
Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle "adventure". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made "Linda" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and  even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.

Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.

Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.

I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.
I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.

The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.

Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later.

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

positive
Rickman is sexy and good, but the "stranger" is less convincing - Reedus is sort of sexy, but he is not a consistent actor - this could be the director's fault in this case - we are supposed to find him alluring in the extreme just because he is "pretty" - but that's not enough. The thwarted wife is almost convincing - 7 years marriage and she and Rickman's character should be more settled with each other, whether their roles are to be incompatible or not - they must have patterns by now. i get that, although i think the wife is a bit stiff in her role - and not convincingly attracted to the "stranger" - so that's a failing - the unspoken bonding between the Rickman character and the "stranger" is better done, even if we are not sure what it is. i miss Rickman's sexy English accent (luckily he slips into it and out of the American pattern). disappointing but with some great acting.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Although the film does have a fairly stylish look for an indie made on a really low budget, that's not what I go to movies for. There wasn't one character I found sympathetic, they all seemed to be absolutely clueless losers. Everything they attempt ends badly, it's all too hopeless for me. Reviews refer to the Puffy Chair as a black comedy...comedy? The brother Rhett behaves like an escapee from an institution. When Josh talks to girl friend Emily about his brother, he almost hints at Rhett not playing with a full deck. Nonetheless Josh performs a "wedding" for Rhett and a woman Rhett met just a few hours before. There were a few interesting performances by some of the characters encountered on the road. However for me the most telling thing was that people were walking out of the film...and I saw it at a free screening.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Do you know that they want to escavate the Moon for real?And in Geneve there is the debated project that could lead to make possible time machine?All i can say about this movie that is based on facts about future(at the time of the movie)scientifical projects but real. Hope the moon will exist not happen as in the movie. Now about the movie itself, I saw the original movie too, and I also read the book. The book I didn't like though, but the movie yes.I totally agree with a previous comment that this movie was depressing,unlike the 60's one.That was very good with force, this one was only a paralled future of what is good movie.

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

negative
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. 

Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. 

Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. 

The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them

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

negative
The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive