cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.

It left me yearning for a real film. :)

The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.

And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.

(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)

Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.

Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films. 

Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing "motherf---er!" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.

Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?

Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the "Ed Wood" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than this movie.
This is one of the best "Bloke" movies from the early 90's and whilst slightly dated, its one of those movies that would never get made today, which makes it very special! In fact, a very similar movie was made in the 90's called "Masterminds" and it was a PG variation on the same theme, but it was nowhere near as fun or realistic for that matter.

So what's so special about this film? It's the comradre between the main characters and the against all odds theme of the film. Sean Astin is very likable and has starred in some of the most memorable films of the 80/90's, particularly "The Goonies". He also went onto greater things with "Rudy" and "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy, but "Encino Man" is a good trip down memory lane. Will Wheaton from "Stand by Me" lends nice support to the film and Andrew Divoff is a terrific villain. Louis Gossett Jr sleepwalks in his role, but he does add some brevity to the film, particularly his relationship with Astin's rebellious nature.

So how's the action? By today's standards, it's rather tedious and cheap looking, almost like a TV movie, but the production values are good and the violence is actually quite nasty for a film involving school students. However, the director makes up for the limited budget with some nicely suspenseful moments and well placed humor.

So park your brain at the door and enjoy this fondly remembered action flick, but don't expect Oscar material!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.

'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.

To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.
Write a positive movie review.

Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.
Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).

Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Director John Schlesinger's tense and frantic film tells the true story of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee, two young men who sold United States government secrets to the Soviet Union in the early 1970's.

Timothy Hutton plays Christopher Boyce very competently. He is a young man very disillusioned by the CIA's underhanded activities in allied Australia. Sean Penn, as the doped-up, drug running Andrew Daulton Lee, is outstanding.

The competent and professional direction of Schlesinger, along with some very good acting, make "The Falcon and the Snowman" an espionage thriller not to be missed.

Tuesday, February 4, 1992 - Video
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

THE GREEN BUTCHERS (Anders Thomas Jensen - Denmark 2003).

How do the Danes keep coming up with these films that are consistently funny, sharply written, exquisitely filmed and filled with great performances? THE GREEN BUTCHERS is a dark and wickedly funny comedy, in many ways the Danish counterpart of EATING RAOUL and DELICATESSEN, but it has more on offer than just laughs or parody. 

The film brings us the duo of chronic pothead Bjarne (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) and chronic perspirer Svend (Mads Mikkelsen). Sick of their evil boss, the two pals decide to open their own butcher shop in a small Danish town, but initially business is slow and customers stay away. When an electrician is accidentally locked up and freezes in their meat locker, Svend decides to turn the man's thigh into fillets he promptly nicknames "chickie-wickies." This special dish suddenly has everyone in town flocking to their counter and Svend - unable to resist this sudden leap into popularity - turns into a serial killer with Bjarne acting as his reluctant accomplice. But soon, led by their ex-boss, many people in town are starting to wonder what special ingredients the two men are using.

Without the extraordinary performances by Kaas and Mikkelsen, the film might not have risen above the level of the average black comedy. On paper, the character of Svend might border on caricature but Mads Mikkelsen portrait is that of an earnest, insecure and deeply twisted man, but Mikkelsen manages to make him frightening, funny and moving at the same time. Kaas actually plays a double role, also playing his comatose twin brother Eigil. When watching the film, I never even realized it was the same actor. The other performances are just as wonderful with every character in town refreshingly off-the-hook with some truly wonderful vignettes.

The subject material is - naturally - a bit morbid and the material might not be completely fresh, considering quite a few predecessors that handled the same kind of material, but director Jensen gives it a fresh twist and manages to build some real characters with the strange duo of Svend and Bjarne, with this wonderfully bizarre tale of two social misfits.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10
I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an "engrossing" piece of work.

So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by "mgconlan-1"), and pretty much can agree with its details.

Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly "good," but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.

Give it a "3*" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There is no "fun" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the "heroes" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!

In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore/Lieberman poster!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad. 

The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety. 

Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, "why did he have to be black!" 

I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions. 

That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie. 

A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, "thank you?"

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

negative
One of the enduring classics from MGM came out in the closing years of World War II, it's the film that made young Elizabeth Taylor a star. She had done a few films as a child actress before National Velvet, but when it came out her place in the movies was assured. Ironically enough biologically she'd be growing up fast enough after National Velvet was out and her next struggle as an actress was to get substantial adult roles because casting directors only saw her as innocent little Velvet Brown who loved her jumping horse.

I'm not sure of how this would work because steeplechase horses have to have confirmed bloodlines and the Pi's are a subject not dealt with in National Velvet. All we know is that he's a reckless and untrainable horse in the hands of Reginald Owen and after he breaks free and causes considerable damage, Owen gets rid of him for a nominal price to the local butcher Donald Crisp.

At the same time as these things are happening, Mickey Rooney comes wandering into the lives of the Brown family which consists of Crisp, wife Anne Revere, and daughters Angela Lansbury, Juanita Quigley, and Elizabeth Taylor and their little brother Butch Jenkins. Rooney is a former jockey who's now on the open road and heading for the Brown family where his father was once a horse trainer for Anne Revere's family. It's he who sees the potential of the Pi (short for pirate) as a steeplechase jumper and it's Elizabeth who convinces Crisp not to pass up this chance.

Elizabeth Taylor was so sweet and innocent in National Velvet. The Good Book says you have to have faith like a child and she has it to spare. She infuses Rooney with it, to have faith in the heart and ability of the Pi and to leave a little over for himself.

Anne Revere won a Best Supporting Actress Award for National Velvet. She's a very wise mother who has hidden depths to her that the audience doesn't suspect. It turns out that back in her youth she had a taste of fame and glory swimming the English Channel and her prize money, saved all these years, she gives to her daughter. That scene is probably what won her the Oscar. National Velvet also won one other Academy Award, for Film Editing.

Over 60 years after it made its debut National Velvet as a family classic hasn't lost a thing. Its depiction of life between the World Wars in Great Britain is still a standout. And National Velvet launched a movie legend. Can't do much better than that for high regard.

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

positive
I guess my husband and I are a little slow. We don't usually warm up to a series until they are almost at the end of their production life. In this case, we didn't start watching KoQs until almost the 6th season. I'm not sure how it escaped our radar for so long. Other than the fact that we are not big fans of "appointment" TV viewing. Our schedules our such that we don't like to commit to watching series every time they come on (and we didn't have a DVR yet). So I guess it wasn't until TBS starting running reruns on their daily lineup in the evenings that we started watching consistently.

By the time we got hooked, there were only a couple more season's left before the series was canceled. But we still watch it almost daily on TBS. I almost prefer to see series this way, because you can watch multiple episodes day after day and it helps to build continuity and what's going on with the characters without having to wait a whole week.

But the episodes stand alone in the since that the stories don't carry over from week to week. But that is fine with me, because you can watch an episode, then miss weeks - and still pick back up.

My only criticism is the writing wasn't always consistent. Some episodes would be outrageously hilarious, and then some would only be mildly funny. So, I'm not sure it had the quality of writers that Seinfeld or Raymond had. But I loved the casting and the characters are all quite believable and realistic. Kevin James is just plain funny to look at! So even if the plot isn't that great, James body language and expressions make the show worth watching. Leah Remini is great as the "play-it-straight" wife. I think its harder to play the straight character for laughs, than the comedic character, and she does a great job. She has a knack at sarcasm and insults like no one else. She is one tough cookie! And who can forget Arthur as Carrie's dad, who lives with them in their basement. 

This a great series and I was sorry when it cancelled. But a big thanks to TBS for keeping the King alive in reruns!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), and now Thirst. 

Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see - typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that I've seen.

Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more palatable for repeat viewings.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating)
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth, which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth. 

This is a one and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming (i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is certainly not for the impatient person...

I often felt it was similar to David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the end of 2001: a space odyssey.
Determine the sentiment:

I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I know what most of people will think about this movie without even seen it... 'The typical movie from a famous singer... It will be a pink movie,a teenage film,it will be stupid...' and stuff like that... And yes, it is...I mean, it's a pink movie... But, you know what?...I LOVED IT. Seriously...It's a very romantic film... I think that every girl in this world has dreamed with something like the plot of 'Popstar'... Met his favorite singer, know him as a person...and even have a romance with him...right? ^^ I really enjoyed watching that... In addition, it's really funny... 

I think the actors did a great job... There's a lot of loving characters...And, Aaron Carter (JD) is not the exception... To be honest, in the first five minutes of see him act, i thought 'this will be awful'...But then , he surprised me really pleasingly...

Also, I gotta say that the music performances on the film are GREAT! I specially loved the part when JD ( Aaron) sings without music , (only with a guitar) a very beautiful song...This guy is really talented... Time will tell...

My advice to you?...Watch it! Don't make a prejudice ;-)
In the DVD era, you would think you could find pretty much any piece of crap committed to celluloid and for the most part, it's true. So WHY, WHY is it so hard to find this great little flick, clearly done by people who love noir as a loving homage (buit never descending into spoof land) of that most cinematic of genres. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are a HOOT in this and superstar-in-the-making Carla Gugino (KAREN SISCO, SIN CITY) does her now trademark red hot babe/great acting routine. 

This movie really has it all for fans of film. A b noir on steroids, the clever and steamy JUDAS KISS succeeds on every count.

Please Columbia TriStar PLEASE release it on DVD soon!!!!!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.

My Grade: D-
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Andy Milligan, the independent movie maker from New York, directs this little "treat" as his version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Sweeney slits the throats of customers in his barbershop and his cohort Mrs. Lovett turns them into meat pies. Thankfuly I was well-informed of the plot prior to seeing this film travesty. Milligan, for my money, has to indeed be running in the lead of worst directors of all-time race. Ed Wood looks like Orson Welles in comparison. This movie is so bad in oh so many ways. Let's take Milligan's direction for starters. The film quality is grainy. The sound quality is grainy. Many scenes look as if Milligan was using a camcorder to film. The credits say "Photograped and directed by Andy Milligan." He wants to take credit for ceilings showing up after a death scene? How about the atrocious musical score selected for the film? The film cuts with one poor transition after another. Little logic is used in the creation of the plot. The story has little to do with the actual legend of Todd. The murder scenes are plentiful but not horrifying in any way. Hands, legs, and other appendages are cut with the skill in which the editing was done: choppily! And let's take the breast in the pie scene. Yes, it is in there. The pie maker didn't know that an entire breast with nipple filled an entire pie crust? Later we hear from our characters that they "have been careful not to get caught" for the 200 plus murders they have done. Obviously they are a couple of boobs not able to keep abreast of what is going on(sorry it was too tempting). The actors are not too terribly bad to be honest. Some even have glimmers of talent, and all seem to be genuine English articles. Many non-erotic nude scenes are forced throughout. Milligan seemingly has some issues regarding sex. Plot strands are left untied. The ending is almost unwatchable due to poor camera work. I could go on and on. Did I like anything about the film? Not much to be truthful. I have a high level of acceptance for films of this ilk in terms of low budgets and marginal talent, but this film lacks any real purpose other than to be crude and sick.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Sci-Fi channel thinks this IS Sci-Fi; it's a shame. Big Bugs, Snakes, Mythical Beasties, on and on, they persist.

Some one at Universal had the brains to include BattleStar Galactica (the new, good one) and Firefly for a brief moment in their line up. I know they know they difference between total garbage and extremely high quality sci-fi.

A few years back they were on about how they were going all high and mighty, making productions that were not just for us mere, lame-o Trekkies. Thanks so much, Sci-Fi! You know, you make movies so bad, even Trekkies won't watch them, so you achieved your goal! Fire Serpent, Ice Spiders, Manticore, Larva etc.and a vast unrelenting crap-storm later, and they're still churning out just faster than the latest flu virus! How they do it is beyond my ken. Why they do it, I just don't know. How they can ignore these reviews, comments, blogs and e-mails, I don't know either, but it's clear they don't think much of their audience or care about our opinions! They seem to think this is what sci-fi fans want! You would think one or two good productions with some sense would creep through when whoever green lights this junk is on vacation. At least they're employing the collection of Misfit Toys; many of the sci-fi movie of the week actors were in Science Fiction shows once and now need the cash. Love you folks, and hope you get some better work!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. 

India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. 

a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.

A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). 

I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.
I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.

As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.

For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment."
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation" remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.' 

This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to "Easy Rider" and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.

The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right? 

This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.

I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): "She's a latent existentialist." Wow, far out, groovy. 

A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Let me start out by saying I LOVE horror movies. Big budget, low budget, big name actors, no name actors, it doesn't matter. And when it comes to judging movies I am very forgiving. This movie however, is pretty bad.

The actors show little or no emotion when delivering their lines and the acting is worse than many lower budget horror flicks I've seen. As the actors get killed off, you could care less. There is very little gore (I have no idea what film other reviewers watched when they say there is good gore in this one, because there isn't) and the special effects are substandard at best. They steal so much from so many better horror movies (Jeepers Creepers, Friday the 13th, Leprachaun) and it still doesn't help.

Luckily I saw this on Showtime and didn't have to actually pay any extra money to see it or waste a spot in my Netflix queue on it. There are so many better horror movies out there and I recommend you see those instead of this big letdown.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.

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

negative
I am obviously disappointed so I'll be brief and won't waste your time. First off, the plot was uninspired... at least. The animation was even worse, we're in 2008 for god's sake and it looked like a shinier version of G.I.Joe. I won't even bother characterizing the actors' performance and the dialogs. Or maybe I will 'cause I just saw that in order to post a comment over here you need 10 lines (?!??!?!). Where were we? Oh yeah the performance, well it was totally flat, lacking passion and talent if I am excused. Now as for the dialogs, just like the acting, no memorable quotes, nothing that someone wouldn't expect. Let's just hope the movie will be decent ...at least.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did "Silence of The Lambs" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like "Pretty In Pink." Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated "Forgedaboutit."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.

The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.
Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than "overly arty") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Can't get much eerier than Flatliners. This deep, dark film had my heart pumping throughout. The lighting is dark and will get you in the mood for a death defying experience, literally. Keifer is in top form as he is today in 24. He's a great actor and he plays a very convincing and shocking role you won't forget for years to come. And what can you say for the rest of the cast? An all-star lineup, Julia is hotter than ever, Will, Oliver, and Kevin light up the stage in this thriller that will keep you gripping your seats. It's a refreshing sight to see a true thriller, with top notch professional actors. You won't regret seeing this 2 hour seat bender. -JL
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I'm a huge fan of legendary director Elia Kazan . His movies often deal with people trying to overcome their weaknesses. Be it obsessive love in 'Splendor In the Grass, poverty in "A tree Grows in Brooklyn" or racism in "Gentlemen's Agreement." While looking for other movies made by Kazan, I stumbled across a movie that was based on a novel by Arthur Miller. The movie called "Focus" stars William H.Macy (who happens to be one of my favorite actors) and Laura Dern. It deals with anti-Semitism in a very realistic way. 

Macy's character seems to go along with the bigots in his neighborhood and on his job, until it affects him personally. That's the key here... the reason he acted wasn't because he knew it was wrong and he wanted to take a stand, he acted because he was now considered an outsider, and he began to experience the same looks, the same remarks, and the same brutally that Mr. Finklestein (David Pamyers)experienced .

The movie is very well written and well acted. Meat Loaf does a awesome job of playing a dirt bag! Both Macy and Dern's performances are outstanding! It's easier in life to go along with, instead of going against. Sometimes in order for people to take a stand things have to impact their lives, or the lives of their loved ones...Only then will some find their moral compass.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A fantastic film featuring great Aussie talent. Director Mark Lamprell dealt with the potentially sob-inducing subject matter in a way which was humorous and refreshing. Definitely the highlight of the 2000 Brisbane International Film Festival. Australian film veteran, Sam Neill was, as always, fabulous in the role of Frank's uni professor and new talent Matt Newton gave a performance which will have people saying, " you know, Bert Newton, Matt's dad!" Get out and see this movie!!!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

PLOT SPOILERS!!!! Dr. Boch (George C. Scott) is the chief of medicine at a major NYC hospital. He's left his wife, his children have disowned him, he's impotent, drinks a lot and contemplates suicide. Also there's a killer roaming the hospital. Then he meets VERY strange Barbara (Diana Rigg) and falls in love. She wants him to run away with her--but can he completely give up on his old life and start a new one?

Very strange movie with an Oscar winning script by Paddy Chayefsky. It presents a suicidal main character and shows us a hospital full of overworked nurses and doctors that is run incompetently. It manages (somehow) to actually make this seem pretty funny. It's not laugh out loud humor--it's VERY black humor. Also the acting is right on target--Scott is just great (and Oscar nominated) here. You see him trying to keep his sanity in a totally crazy situation. Riggs character is more than a little odd but her matter of fact manner works and she's also incredibly beautiful. The script is strong and brutal--but never too much. I think it fumbles the ball at the end with a situation that goes way too over the top--but it's still worth seeing. If this had been done totally seriously it probably would be impossible to take. Also look for Katherine Helmond in a small bit and Stockard Channing and Christopher Guest in uncredited bits. I personally had trouble taking this seriously. From what I've heard hospitals WERE this bad back in the 1970s but not anymore. See it for the acting and script. I give it a 7.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I, like most other people, saw this movie after hearing of it from Patton Oswalt. Oddly enough, it was easier to find than I thought it would be. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I found it used.

The plot is summed upped masterfully within the title. It's a bed that eats. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an effort to throw in a story line but not a very good one.

A demon's blood ended up on a bed and, as a result, it becomes possessed. It devours anything that happens upon it by absorbing and then dissolving it in what appears to be orange Fanta. There is an artist who fell victim to the bed, but was sick and ends up behind a painting in the room it inhabits. The narrative is told entirely through him.

This movie fails horribly at everything, even at being bad. Still, it's not without its own brand of charm.