cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.

There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with "funny" comments.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Its a good film set in Vienna about a cab driver, Toni (Donald Buka), who steals a passenger's identity when the passenger is shot whilst sitting in the back of his cab. This gives him an identity as he is an illegal immigrant, but he needs to play out the role of the victim until he catches a flight to the U.S. with a ticket in the victim's name. Mrs Manelli (Joan Camden) rumbles him but she is accused of having mental problems by her husband, Claude (Francis Lederer), a concert pianist. As a result, Toni is let off the hook. Claude does not want to part from his wife, but she runs away from him. There are several plot twists and eventually both Toni and Mrs Manelli make a run for it together - they are both trying to escape from their lives in Vienna. There is a tense, exciting build-up to the finale. Are they going to get away.....??...

Unfortunately, the picture quality isn't fantastic and there is a line that runs down the middle of the picture for a while. The cast are all very good in their roles, especially Francis Lederer's portrayal of Claude. Also important to the story are Heinth (Manfred Inger) as the cab company owner, Marie (Inge Konradi) as Toni's hometown girlfriend and the inspector (Hermann Erhardt). 

Its a good film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:

1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.

2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.

3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.

4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.

5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.

6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.

7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..) 

8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.

9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..

10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!

The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
L'Humanité is a murder mystery. These movies tend to be popular,

and the 6.9 rating it currently has suggests that it has been, too.

Unfortunately, this movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

A few non-spoilers, for instance, include a 5-minute scene

wherein the main character eats an apple. And another 3 minutes

where he breathes.

In case you were wondering, this is not, in fact, art. Neither is it a

commentary on humanity, which from the title it seems it is trying

to be. It is, in fact, boring. There are numerous attempts in this

movie to say something about humanity. One might think to

onesself, "How would I comment on humanity?" And the most

obvious and boring answers will of course be sex, love, and death.

Not that these options are uninteresting when done well - just that

they are the canonical options. For sex, this movie does its best to

make it unattractive and disgusting. In your first five minutes -

hence this is not a spoiler - you will see the bloodied vagina of a

murdered 11-year-old girl; it's a murder mystery, remember? Later

on, a few people throw themselves at each other and have what

the director would like us to believe is "raw" sex, but in reality it's

contrived and overly symbolic - but worse yet, uninterestingly so.

I enjoy being disturbed by movies. This movie showed me why:

Disturbing movies usually show something inside of someone,

their humanity, which they did not know existed and are a bit

scared of. L'Humanité tried to do just this and failed, and I walked

out of the theatre not disturbed, but disgusted, thinking that I had

wasted my time in the theater, despite having seen the movie for

free.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

If you've not seen this then look out for it. It is available on DVD. It is a channel 4 (uk) production, possibly, in conjunction with German and danish TV. If you've seen the film it is basically the same plot. Several interleaved stories are connected through the drugs trade. The story jumps between the housewife (played by the excellent Lyndsay Duncan) trying to complete a deal on behalf of her husband, who to her surprise is an international drugs dealer (and generally dangerous man).

A minister, who is embedded in his job to the detriment of his family, is investigating the whole state of affairs with international drugs trafficking. He gets a few eye openers to the reality of heroin when his daughter turns out to have a 'problem'. He then visit Pakistan, officially, where he seems to be taught that the abuse (not simply the drug or its casual use) is the problem and also gets to sample some produce (an excellent scene where he simultaneously realises what the attraction is and why it is and why it is such a problem). In Pakistan we get to see the other side. The desperation of farmers who can barely survive turning to opium production and crime lords. The pointless attempts at subsidy resulting in the system getting rich. And a country so drenched in drugs yet only a relative fraction of the abuse we have in the west. Around all this a customs official/interpol agent tries to catch the 'dutch' connection in heroin smuggling. Seeking justice for his murdered partner. This really is a masterpiece. Super, understated performances from all the main actors in a way only European cinema can really do.

A must see. Especially if you have seen the film, they compliment each other abd present some subtly different opinions/attitudes from both sides of the pond.
Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it.

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

negative
Oh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.

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

negative
The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.

This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.

Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.

The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes "Legally blonde" look like "The Usual Suspects" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 4/10
Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.

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

negative
Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by Édith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.

Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.

Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.



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

positive
I saw this film much like Skywalker02 did, but when I could manage to see it again and with formal film training, psychology, and life has had the time to really take me by the hand and start beating me about,..I really click with the film. I remember the pay for service cable channels played this thing almost to death, much like poltergeist when it first came out, and many other popular films. I felt back then it wasn't worth the fuss and constant "airtime" (I know cable isn't really on air) given it, but I was very young and adult situation drama wouldn't have and shouldn't have worked. However, recent viewing of the film has enlightened me on the film. I think that Susan Surandon and Molly Ringwald were likely studying the script together, and I would be a bit surprised if Surandon had coached Ringwald during this project. Ringwald's other projects, while good, do not have her exhibiting the potential depth as this role. Surandon nailed hers, as Raul Julia did also. Cassavettes and wife delivered acceptable performances, but I will admit at times first class acting turns to mediocre. A steady ebb and flow to the acting does take place during many scenes, but overall I can see why the story might call for the dynamic to become more subtle.

All in all, I don't find this film to be the "take me out and drown me" kind of boredom fest as Skywalker02 would have you believe. I think that perhaps with the right psychological training and a bit more hardship in one's domestic life strategically placed, coupled with some film courses perhaps this film would appear different. I would say if you are feeling a bit melancholy and yearn for a simpler life, and you have had your share of marital discord amongst dysfunctional family units, then perhaps this film might provide more insight and entertainment than you might think. I do feel it is a classic and find it much more entertaining than mainstream films that are supposed to share many of the same elements, such as Terms of Endearment which as far as I am concerned could be stripped of a few extraordinary performances by Jack Nicholson, then ceremoniously burned until nothing is left. (How could a film like that get more attention than this one. Talk about boredom.)Best thing, don't take my word or anyone else's, see the film and support our industry.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Another stupid "movie". The quality of image is correct. Sound too. Music is middle. The guy try make music like in Halloween.

For one rare time, producer/director choose no-anorexic girls. It is cause this "movie" take one week to do and cost $10,000. Does it mean when producer have money they choose all anorexic girls? Good question.

But girls in this "movie" are physically correct. But they are not good actress. Neither guys too. But maybe it's just cause the "story" of this "movie" have no value.

I'm sure we give $10,000 to some teen who like movie, and they can create a better movie.

Don't lose your time to watch this "thing".
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I mean, you just have to love the Italian film industry. Someone came up with a post-doomsday action movie ("Road Warrior") and the Italians were busy for years doing one rip-off after another. Then some other one came up with a successful barbarian movie ("Conan") and the Italians were busy... eh, see above.

Besides countless other variations of the theme (one of my favorites is Umberto Lenzi's "The Barbarians" starring the Paul twins) the Ator series was created. And this, the second one, is probably the worst (or best, depending on your point of view).

Ator is called back into action by his old teacher, who has discovered some kind of nuclear power that, of course, has to be protected so it won't get into wrong hands. The old man sends his daughter to Ator, and after a few complications Ator, his sidekick Tong and the girl set back to the castle, which meanwhile has fallen to some evildoer (of course, an old "class mate" of Ator). Somewhere along the way the heroic trio forgets about the plot and eradicates some giant snake-worshipping cult for the fun of it (not before some virgins are sacrificed). Just in time before the madman finally loses his temper and kills the wise teacher our heroes remember their duties, invent hanggliding and grenades and save the day.

Included: terrible acting by all participants (especially O'Keeffe), incredibly hilarious "special effects" (you just have to adore the snake fight scene, which must be sort of a hommage to "Bride of the Monster"), badly staged fight scenes, numerous continuity errors (Ator flies two different hanggliders during the climatic battle, watch for it, just an example) and an overall non-understanding of the concept of history (cavemen, "civilized" barbarians, castle-builders, all thrown in one film).

If you're, like me, devoted to bad movies, this is the one of the series to see, you'll probably end up ROTFL. For the records: the Malta-filmed third part is actually quite watchable.

Considering Joe D'Amato's other efforts this is probably his most entertaining movie, as he certainly has failed to deliver watchable horror or erotic movies. But I strongly have the opinion that this was completely by accident.



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

negative
I just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying "London" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to "Paris" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel "What If" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title "An American Werewolf Comes Home" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie accurately portrays the struggle life was for the typical East German. Watched by the secret police, friends and coworkers, most easterners simply existed.

The Strelzyk's and the Wetzel's were two families that decided they weren't going to take it anymore. 

Despite the extreme danger involved in escaping to the West, they feel the rewards far outweighed the risks. John Hurt and Beau Bridges, portraying the respective family heads hit upon the idea of flying over East Germany's heavily fortified border. 

There are tense moments as they gather and jimmy-rig the necessary materials for the flight. They work their day jobs and construct the balloon at night, right under the noses of the authorities, one of whom is Strelzyk's neighbor (Klaus Loewitsch). 

The first attempt, involving only the Strelzyks, ends in failure when the balloon crashes just a few yards from the border. The crashed balloon is discovered by border guards and an relentless search begins for the conspirators who are determined to try again. With sales of materials being closely monitored Peter and Guenter still manage to procure bits and pieces of cloth with which to construct a second balloon for their nail biting escape to freedom. The film also features a heartwarming and effective soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

My college theater just had a special screening last night of this film. I have got to say that I think everyone was impressed with how good this movie was. Though, my roommate didn't care for it but he's not into horror movies anyway and just went to see if Paris Hilton can act. By the way, if you're worried about that, don't be. I'm not exactly one of her fans, but I must be honest and say she was pretty good and she has the best death scene. Overall, all the actor's were very good. I'm not gonna go into detail for the plot since I'm sure you know about it. Surpirsisngly, the characters are pretty engaging and you actually care for them, especially Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray's characters. We meet them as rival siblings and end with them having to work together. Another plus is that it does not have the sleek look of Amityville Horror or Texas Chainsaw Massacre and feels almost documentary-like rather than a music video (Don't get me wrong, I loved Texas Chainsaw and enjoyed Amityville).

Now for the death scenes. In most slasher movies, whenever a character is stabbed or killed, the scene immediately cuts away to another scene,but not in this one. When a character is about to die, they die pretty gruesomely. But the filmmakers don't stop there and add a little something extra each time for each victim. I won't say anything about the death scenes and will let you see them for yourself.

While this is a great slasher movies, it does have the flaws of almost all slasher films (exploring a creepy house when you shouldn't be, getting a ride with a suspicious character, splitting up, and screaming so the killer can hear you). Also, there is a kinda stupid plot twist that was unnecessary and didn't add to the film at all. You could tell it was just added in at the last moment and if you took it out, it would not have affected the movie at all.

Basically, if you are a horror film fan, see this movie. You will not be disappointed. It's got all that's needed to make it a great slasher film, possibly the best of the year even though it's kinda early. The suspense is felt and it is at times a funny movie. If you hate horror films, chances are you may like this one and if you are divided, I encourage you to give it a shot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...

The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running/hopping away for their lives...

As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.

In short: one freaky film for its time.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).

Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Gilles Mamouni is playing with the audience with the story of Max (Vincent Cassel) in search of his biggest lost love (Monica Bellucci) just before to get engaged to another woman. Mamouni uses many flashbacks sequences without warning so the best way to know where we are in the story is to watch for the actor's haircut. Oherwise it can get very confusing... Still a strong film debut for Mamouni, beautifully photographed by Thierry Arbogast (the 5th element, the Messenger), and Monica Bellucci is a darling to watch ... I felt a little disappointed near the end so I gave it 9 out of 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals. Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish. Don't miss the genius contained in this one.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".

Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).

This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.

The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Hoot is a nice young person's film about a group of middle school kids that try and keep a pancake house chain from bulldozing a plot of land that is home to some endangered burrowing owls. The acting is pretty good and the fresh faces are nice to see. Many well known comedians are in this film and keep the humor going almost nonstop. It is a film for the young crowd, perhaps 5 to 11 years of age. I thought it was a nice change of pace from the adult films that pervade the screen these days. There is no realism here or accuracy about life in general for adults or kids. It's just a bunch of fun with a constant message about saving the beautiful places in this country from becoming over developed. If you can remember back to the day when you weren't fight for a buck you may remember that money isn't everything. Not many people over 12 are going to enjoy it unless they really have a soft spot for the old after school special series.
Have you ever seen one of those shows that became so popular that it could eventually get away with any crummy nonsense and repetitive halfhearted gimmicks that it's creators can get away with? If you haven't, then you've never seen Family Guy.

Fans of the show seem to think of it as witty, edgy, and poignant. It's none of these, it is however dull, repetitive, insulting, and uninspired.

The "humor" of the show comes from two sources.

1) Irrelevant idiocy. The show often has flashbacks to things that have nothing to do with the plot and are mostly just absurd and pointless. And then there's the random movie references in which the shows characters reenact a scene from a popular movie without effectively parodying it . . . or parodying it at all(which ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!).

2) the same crap that's in every episode the show. The one guy is a sexual deviant with STD's, AHA HA! Isn't that funny?! Hey, ya know what's even funnier? Making the same joke about him anywhere between one and fifteen times in a single episode. And don't just tell it numerous times in a single episode, make sure you drag it out so that an entire scene is devoted just to telling the one joke. Now also imagine that this same routine is used over and over again for practically every character in the whole series.

The offbeat "un-PC" humor isn't as "un-PC" as they would have you believe, mostly they just say whatever morons think about the latest newspaper headlines, politicians, and random celebrities.

The series had it's moments, but now I think it's time just take the show off the air and be done with it.

You know what IS funny? I still like this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.

Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.

The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.

Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.

The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, "The Egyptian" reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.

anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<<
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.
This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphereand also a want, or a lack of it.

Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.

Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.

I will be your true friend and break it to youthe flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.

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

negative