cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.

Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.

The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.

There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.

The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.

The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.
The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.

This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized "something" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.

I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.

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

negative
I had never heard of "The Clearing" until I was really bored one day with some friends in the local Blockbuster and it grabbed our attention. The description on the DVD jacket grabbed our interest, but once we popped it into the DVD player, the boredom was only beginning.

The story was dragged out for waaaay too long. It seemed to follow the same outline as other movies which include a kidnapping. The most suspenseful parts were in the beginning of the movie, however. After that, the outline was followed exactly and that made "The Clearing" unoriginal. The flashbacks were too many in number and the grief of the victim's family provided nothing interesting nor enhanced the nature of the film. And I also found that I did not like the ending, so that probably led to me not liking the movie at all.

The acting was not horrible...it wasn't the greatest, though. Robert Redford has given much better performances. Willem Dafoe's tragic character was the only one I really saw develop throughout the story line and the viewer only really sees that change in the last ten minutes or so in the movie. Helen Mirren's portrayal as Robert Redford's wife was flat and sort of followed the same generic mold as other movies which include a tragic and heart-splitting event.

In my opinion, "The Clearing" is nothing to rave about. Use your movie rental money on something else...like "Garden State," perhaps?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!

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

negative
James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This film starts as it ends and ends as it starts. What is in the middle is a collection of comedy, philosophy, music, observations, commentaries, mini stories, colour and lots more. It looks at the world and our lives and tells The Monkees story from the view of the group members themselves. It also looks at television and film and makes a visual commentary. It shocks also, with scenes of war and shows how we are just pawns in a big game. It says all this and much more, but if you don't look at it objectively you won't see much more than scenes strung together to join up the music. It's the sort of film that can never get boring because it's so cleverly done.
"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. 

"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.

THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS

From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. 

In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. 

The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. 

Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).

Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.

Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.

DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE

I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. 

The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.

The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.

CONCLUSION

"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Unforgiven is Clint Eastwoods last tribute to the once great west. But whilst i thought this was going to be good and raise the bar for future westerns to come i was sadly mistaken. Unforgiven, though simple in plot it falls flat on characters and emotions and i would certainly say that Unforgiven is Eastwoods worst film to date. Eastwoods himself seems too old to play the part of acting and directing which also adds a downfall to the overall look of the film.

All the characters seem rushed and ragged around the edges especially Eastwoods character. The acting doesn't seem to flow and contribute to what the characters are feeling. The direction is poorly misled by quirky shots. So overall Unforgiven is not Eastwoods best and by far one of the worst westerns around.
Two Soldiers is an excellent example of fine film-making. The director and producer took a heart-warming story and brought it to life with a very skilled and dedicated cast, excellent cinematography, and very creative artistry.

The relaxed back-woods lifestyle of the brothers was depicted with great details, and contrasted sharply with the militaristic lifestyle that they were thrust into. The interaction between the brothers brought laughter and tears, as they struggled with a hard but peaceful life in the back-woods of North Carolina and an even harder life of war.

The acting was great, particularly from the younger brother who is new to the big screen (played by Jonathan Furr), to the older brother (played by Ben Allison) and the powerful perfomrance by the Colonel (played by Ron Perlman). The performance was extremely well cast.

It was a pleasure to enjoy the magic of Two Soldiers, and I heartily recommend it to audiences of all ages.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Okay, anyone looking to see a great work of art should NOT watch this film. A sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (Joseph Cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. Mr. Cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. The same phenomenon occurred with Dana Andrews, who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful FROZEN DEAD. I know Mr. Andrews was in the throes of alcoholism, but why did Cotten do this mess?!

As for the plot, it's a reworking of the Frankenstein plot. The first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original Frankenstein story. Then, inexplicably, they introduced a daughter. This wasn't a bad thing,...until then, out of the blue, they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft-core pornographic flick!! The change was dramatic and bizarre. It was almost as if they said "okay, Mr. Cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home,....now ladies,...STRIP!".

The problem is that on every level, the film is just awful except for the monster's makeup. While not great, it is still pretty cool to see. But bad writing, acting and a budget of $17.46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick--one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn't be enough to entice anyone to see it.
Determine the sentiment:

This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.

This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.

First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.

So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.

After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie is truly amazing,over the years I have acquired a taste for Japanese Monster movies and am well aware that early examples of this genre can be poor. However this one reaches a new low, as it follows the adventures of Johnny Sokko(?), a young boy who controls a Giant Robot, and his fight against the evil Gargoyle Gang, who seem to have an endless supply of horrid giant monsters at their disposal.
The film disappointed me for many reasons: first of all the depiction of a future which seemed at first realistic to me was well-built but did only feature a marginal role. Then, the story itself was a weak copy of Lost in Translation. The Middle-Eastern setting, man with family meets new girl overseas, karaoke bar, the camera movements and the imagery - all that was a very bad imitation of the excellent Lost in Translation which had also credibility. This movie tries to be something brilliant and cultural: it is not. I wonder why Tim Robbins even considered doing this film!? The female main actress is awful - did she play the precog in Minority Report? And why do you have to show the vagina in a movie like this? Lost in Translation didn't have to show excessive love scenes. R-Rated just for this? This movie isn't even worth watching it from a videostore!

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

negative
Very slow, plodding movie with a confusing story line. The movie's only hope of keeping the audience interested is the gratuitous nudity thrown in at regular intervals. Ellen Barkin is miscast and her looks do not hold up when she is on screen with the much-younger Peta Wilson. Not sure what this movie was about.

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

negative
Dolemite is a blaxploitation film about, well, Dolemite and his army of kung fu killer women, led by Queen Bee. He fights to get his club, The Total Experience, back from Willie Green by utilizing their kung fu abilities and their devotion to him. I liked this movie because of the witty dialogue and also the use of Rudy Ray Moore's ability to preach to his brothers in rhyme.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Biodoc on the enigmatic singer/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts, spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone).

All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful, after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night' (standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young family that he seemed to adore.

The film's strengths begin with the completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and, later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American musician).

Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories about Nilsson  many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are interview segments with Nilsson's wives  Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc.

The most glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the performance of his greatest hit, "Without You," is cut short after about 8 bars. Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song through, and perhaps one or two more, like "One," or his Oscar winning cover of "Everybody's Talking.'" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5/10 (low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01/07/07)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I have no idea who these others are but this movie is plain awful. They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character. Bait and switch movie just like the studios did with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, etc. The DVD I watched states "this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war" etc. etc. Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked). So much for the movie revolving around Pesci. The only halfway memorable scene was a bad attempt at comedy when they passed gas while waiting for a score. If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you. Please stop and do not lose 87 minutes of your life.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.

It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire." 

The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.

My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.

But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.

"Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.

An easy nine stars.
Determine the sentiment:

Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote. 

I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.

Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film. 

The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.

DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.

Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.

Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.

I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.

Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.

The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.

Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.

Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.

That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.

While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.
this movie takes the voice of terror and makes it better. holmes is protecting an inventor in switzerland and is on the trail of professor moriarity, who has become a nazi. this is a better version of holmes in a WWII world. rathbone does a great job with holmes as a spy and a detective. see this if you liked the voice of terror.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.

The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.

And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.

The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.

And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:

I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.

There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes 

Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt

The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs

For a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid 

Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.

Just painful. Avoid.
Hal Hartley entry into a European film series is one of his two or three best efforts to date, and, lucklily, one of the few available on DVD. At only 63 minutes running time, my only quibble would be with Hartley I always leave wanting more, but never so much as this time. Martin Donovan is astonishing as Jesus. PJ Harvey is beautiful and interesting as Magdelena, but the high point for me was Thomas Jay Ryan (Henry Fool) as Satan. Hartley gives him excellent dialogue and a chance to use his resounding voice to full effect. Look for three scenes in which a microphone awaits him, as if a poetry slam is about to be won by the devil. I have read other comments on this film and had to add mine because there is not enough praise going around. If you like Henry Fool, Martin Donovan in anything (Opposite of Sex), and/or very clever comedies based on biblical ideas, get this as quickly as possible.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

My yardstick for measuring a movie's watch-ability is if I get squirmy. If I start shifting positions and noticing my butt is sore, the film is too long. This movie did not even come close to being boring. Predictable in some parts sure, but never boring.

All of the other military branches have had love notes written about them and seen their recruitment levels go up, why not the Coast Guard too? They are definitely under-appreciated, until the day your boat sinks that is.

The movie was very enjoyable and fun. Kevin Costner is perfect as the aging macho man who doesn't know when to quit. However, I was most impressed by Ashton Kutcher's performance. I have never liked him, never watched any of his TV shows and always considered him an immature ... well, punk. In this film, he does a great job! He is well on his way to having leading-man status. I think the film we were shown must have been an advance rough cut or something, because about 2/3 of the way in, the film stock turned very grainy, the sound level dropped and microphones were seen dropping down all over the place. Also at the viewing were representatives from the movie, looking for audience feedback - particularly on the parts of the film we didn't like.

*****POSSIBLE SPOILER: The feedback I gave concerned a a couple of lines in the beginning. Kevin Costner comes home to see his wife, Sela Ward, packing her stuff up and moving out. He says, "Maybe I should be the one to move out." And she replies, "No, you don't know where anything is in this house; I should be the one to go." This doesn't make sense: If she knows the layout so well, Costner is right, he *should* be the one to leave.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!
I could not stand the woman who played the mother. I wanted her to shut up. She had a bizarre manner of speaking and the lines she was given to read didn't make it any better. I had no idea why the men of the town were so taken with her to cause all these problems except that in a town populated by men she seemed to be the only woman over ten and under sixty. Even after a terrible tragedy her voice was devoid of human emotion, she seemed to have no ability to grasp the events of her life. She delivered her lines with the same emotion whether she was saying "i love you", "i hate you", "the bank is foreclosing", "my dress is on fire". Was this actually filmed in Ireland? The sun blazed throughout the movie and the characters seemed surprised by a rain shower during the harvest. I lived in Ireland during the summer of 2002, the wettest summer in a century. Most everything was still harvested. If the farmers in Ireland could only harvest during long dry stretches then the country would have starved hundreds of years ago. It seems as if there wasn't a lot of money to make the movie. The black and white flashbacks looked as if they were filmed with the security cameras one can get at Sam's Club.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
First, I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan. I grew up knowing who he was, and I knew all about that fateful plane ride that extinguished three incredibly bright flames just like that. But I had never truly listened to his music. I had heard much of it, yes, but not until I sat down with the intention of getting something out of it did I truly come to see the real Buddy Holly. And let me tell you that my world is a different one now because of him.

Because of this adoration for such an incredible man, I bought The Buddy Holly Story without ever seeing it previously. I'm torn on my views of this film. Perhaps it's because Buddy feels so alive to me that I just couldn't bear seeing Gary Busey in this role. I'll admit that he did a nice job acting, but his singing sounded so forced. It seemed to me as if he knew he didn't sound a bit like Buddy himself and therefore was using far too much energy to make an attempt at a similar sound. In some parts of the film, he succeeded. But others.. ouch.

The movie spanned a period of several years, but I feel that portraying this time span could have been handled much better. I had a difficult time distinguishing at what point in Buddy's life certain events were happening. I also had a serious problem with some of the historical inaccuracies. I think the worst one was the portrayal of the Crickets. I understand how their real names couldn't be used, and how for simplification there were only two of them in the movie.. and maybe this was a good thing. Because the film's background vocals were cringe-worthy, and I disliked the way they were portrayed as a hindrance to Buddy's career. Something else that really made no difference to the film but irked me was Gary Busey's teeth. They wore me out! Buddy Holly had much better teeth. I don't know why I noticed it.. but I did.

I'll end this review on what I felt was the best part of the movie: Buddy's last performance. His final phone call to Maria, the Big Bopper's performance, bringing him and Richie Valens to the stage, followed by the still frame ending. It startled even me, and I feel that it effectively shows the audience how at one moment Buddy Holly was so alive and energetic, and that his flame was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. It was a beautiful way to portray this horrible tragedy I think.

Good movie, despite the obvious problems.. 7/10.

Some obvious flaws, could use some work... but not bad.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Are sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary "Don't Look Now" depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more light-hearted approach, see "Just Married" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at 2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler, on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy, driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen. Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider, Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding!
This film blew me away. I thought I knew a little about the Attica prison riot. After watching this, I see I knew nothing. The story is told through the relationship between the attorney and the black inmate. Both the personal story of these two men and the unfolding courtroom drama were riveting. The flashback sequences in the prison were awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't documentary footage it was so real. It was not only a great piece of drama, it was an incredible lesson in an important chapter in American history. I'm with Ebert and Roeper. I give it two thumbs up.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When I heard the film was to be released and the theme of what it was about, I felt very curious. But when I saw it was the biggest deception of my life. Technically speaking, the sound is poor, you can tell about man dialogs that were remade on studio that are poorly achieved in the final mix. Secondo of all, the photography is mediocre, some part of the films show some soldiers with night vision goggles, and the way the cinematographer achieves that "dark night" is by illuminated everything like if they were in an actual military base with lights, there's no reference used of the moonlight, my god! Thir but not least, most of the ac tings are really poor, it's totally not believable the roll of the wife of one of the soldier, her performance it's pretty poor.

Great disappointing, shame of the jury who chose to send this movie to represent Colombia on the Oscars.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A wide variety of snakes stage an uprising on tourists "invading" their island due their captain's boat damage. The few remaining survivors who aren't caught vulnerable by the snakes will attempt an escape mission, their goal to flee to available boats which can get them safely off the island.

Presented straight-faced with injected doses of visual humor featuring lots of snake gags, Wayne Crawford's SNAKE ISLAND features plenty of different breeds of the slithery predators, in striking position, ready to attack their prey. Star William Katt, as an author researching snakes for a forthcoming novel, has fun in his role along with writer / director / co-star Wayne Crawford(..as the tourist boat captain) as put-upon heroes who stare down a most serious crisis. Kate Connor is Crawford's attractive love interest, a lawyer on vacation. The other cast members serve as either tourists or crew, mostly fodder for the snakes. 

As in many other movies of this type, director Crawford features live snakes with computer generated ones, and the violence is really tame. Crawford even incorporates the point-of-view technique with the camera as the eyes of the snake as it faces the potential victim(..with the actor looking directly into the camera). Never to be taken seriously, the tongue-in-cheek approach was probably the best way to shoot SNAKE ISLAND because the premise is just too ridiculous to accept on it's own.

The effects and suspense scenes rarely work because Crawford is often unable to successfully stage the sequences where humans face off with the snakes. The snake attacks themselves also never happen on screen(..one or two tops), or are so limply presented they leave little impression. That's a no-no for a genre such as this. Fans of Katt will probably want to check it out because he does provide some facial comedy that establishes the overall tone of certain scenes where he must defend himself against the snakes. The CGI scenes where we see a large number of snakes in a general area aren't very effective which remove the realism Crawford might've attempted to establish. There are plenty of better horror films featuring snakes as the aggressors than SNAKE ISLAND. Surprising moments of nudity, relegated to a scene where the tourists and crew unwind after a long day with the bubbly, not knowing what danger lie ahead.