cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
In Dublin, the crippled rebel Rory O'Shea (James McAvoy) moves to the Carrigmore Residential Home for the Disabled, affecting the lives of the residents. Roy is able to understand the unintelligible speech of Michael Connolly (Steven Robertson), who was left in the shelter by his prominent father many years ago due to his cerebral palsy, and they become close friends. Rory convinces Michael to move from Carrigmore to an apartment in Dublin, and they hire the gorgeous Siobhan (Romola Garai) to assist them. Living together with Rory, Michael faces a new world, finding friendship, love and freedom and learning to survive by his own. 

"Inside I'm Dancing" is a wonderful tale of friendship and freedom in a very beautiful story. The acting of Steven Robertson and James McAvoy are awesome and I do not understand how they have not been nominated to the Oscar with such magnificent performances. Romola Garai has also a top-notch performance and is extremely beautiful and sexy. The screenplay is touching, never corny and without redemption and the precise direction of Damien O'Donnell is very sensitive. Unfortunately the Brazilian title of the DVD is shamefully ridiculous, giving a wrong idea of this excellent movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Os Melhores Dias de Nossas Vidas" ("The Best Years of Our Lives")
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"The Dresser" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the "energetic" character of Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never dwells on it or makes it more than it is.

The gritty style of Peter Yates that worked so well in "Bullitt" is again on display, and gives the film a sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so easily have become tedious. In the end, "The Dresser" will bore many people silly, but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema.

7.7 out of 10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

After a very disappointing Part 3, I kinda wondered if I should even bother with The Next Karate Kid, while I could see why this saga wouldn't continue, I still enjoyed The Next Karate Kid most out of the second and the third Karate Kid movies. While there are some very unrealistic moments and situations, it was very enjoyable and the story is a catchy and warm one.

Hilary Swank, has this girl come far or what? She plays a rebel girl who has lost her parents to a car accident and when Miaugi sort of "babysits" her per say, he notices that she has karate skills. He offers her more lessons if she becomes more serious in life. Now of course there is the boy that likes her and the mean bullies that are pretty similar to the first Karate Kid, but I would recommend this one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There is, as many reviews have observed, a strong dark streak to this movie. The director it most recalls to me is John Landis (yeah, go ahead and howl about what a peasant I am). Arcand has the gift of exploring frivolous things in a bleak, gray kind of way, then turning round and exploring the horrors of life with a lighthearted touch.

The cast is, without exception, above average. Thomas Gibson, as David, is outstanding as the moody and self-deceptive center around whom the rest of the characters revolve. He talks a good nihilist, but his actions reflect more love in his character than he is willing to acknowledge. Gibson was already a strong and subtle actor in 1993. It was difficult to look at him and see Greg Montgomery, let alone Agent Hotchner of Criminal Minds.

Perhaps not the best scene, but the one I enjoy most, my "rewind scene," is the section where Candy is expecting a visitor, and one uninvited person after another shows up at the door. As Candy's interpersonal environment swings further and further out of control, David just grows bouncier, perkier, and more enthusiastic, like a gaunt Gen-X "Tigger."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This picture's following will only grow as time goes by. Better than any of the best picture nominees in 97 and it rewards repeated viewings. I've seen it three times now so I know. Anderson was compared to some of the great American directors (Altman, Scorcese, Tarantino) and he may have those influences but chances are, after a few more films, he'll be considered part of that short list himself.

One last note: Julianne Moore's "Amber Waves" will resonate in the memory long after other 90's movie characters have faded. THE best performance of the year -in any of the four categories.
Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.

This movie can easily be divided into two parts.

The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.

The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.

There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.

Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.

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

negative
Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."

The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.

Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to convince everyone that he is straight.

I love this movie! Kevin Kline is wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Bad dialog, slow story, scenes that drag on and are absolutely pointless. I can't believe this much money was invested in such a poorly written film. The directing and acting couldn't save this bomb either.

50% through the movie and you're still waiting for it to start. They lay the foundation with the opening preface and then spend the next 40 minutes setting up NOTHING. You watch 40 minutes of footage that is absolutely directionless in an attempt to do what, I have no idea.

Much of this film is like watching a really bad french movie where nothing ever happens and the characters are just sort of dull, lifeless and egocentrics living without purpose or care.

Avoid this film at all cost. Anyone that recommends it is setting you up for disappointment and you will undoubtedly question their taste and depth.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend.
Write a positive movie review.

and quite frankly that just sums it up.

It is a small computer animated series that is filmed just like an animal documentory....

The animation is almost flawless (I thought the long necked swimming dinosaurs eyes looked fake).

However some of the model shots didn't look quite that realistic...

and I thought that Jurrassic park made a better T Rex..

If this is the type of thing we see on a normal British TV series then I cannot wait to see what they can accomplish in the movies..

I give this 10/10 stars...

(and the "making of" video was also great.....the dinosaur on the skate board was halarious)

<..>
Write a negative movie review.

Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.
I've read plenty of Jane Austen in my time and approve of several cinema/TV adaptations but this one we just don't need.

Rating is a 2 as I wouldn't say it's awful just so boring you will feel like you've wasted 90 minutes of your life. Dull script matched by even duller acting. I've heard Billie Piper is OK in Dr Who (not a fan so can't confirm) but in this she just sucks. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. This is Austen, it's supposed to be a romance!

Please don't let this put you off Austen or historical dramas. There are plenty of better programmes to view.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The Stepford Children is the second best Stepford movie in the Stepford series.I saw the original The Stepford Wives in the theater when it came out in 1975.I was absolutely blown away,it was terrific.I have seen all of the Stepford movies, and I like all of them.I think that The Stepford Children is such a campy and fun movie.I just watched it again recently on tape, and I enjoyed it immensely.The cast in this movie was real good to watch. Barbara Eden did a bang up job as usual.Every role that she has ever played has been very good.Barbara Eden is very good at playing roles where she is a kind and nurturing type of person.Don Murray as the husband and father was just perfect in this movie.He was particularly effective at being the irritated father to his two teenage children.I made sure that I have all of the Stepford movie on tape to enjoy.If you get a chance to see this movie you should.
Determine the sentiment:

The entire series, not just The Blue Planet, is nothing short of amazing. The best nature series we have ever seen. The episode on the deep is like traveling to outer space! We have watched this with our 10 and 7 year old boys and all four of us have not been able to pull away. We read a negative comment on this and could not believe it. There is so much new information that we never learned in school. Its also the best view we have seen from any television or movie into the delicate balance of our earth's eco-system. The amount of time and effort put into capturing these shots is very much apparent when you sit down and watch this series.

A must see for everyone.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great "blind date" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!! 

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

positive
I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....

I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.

great little intense drama!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.

"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.

Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.

the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.

This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.

It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.

The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.

Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.

Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.

The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.

Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,

It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.

Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.

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

negative
After some further thought about this film, I find it's far too easy to dismiss this as the Boy's dream. I have actually received some spiritual strength from Northfork.......Angels do exist....we definitely are entertained by Angels....most of the time we aren't even aware of it..... At a point of spiritual and emotional turbidity in my life, I personally really needed this film. Yes, as I wrote before, it speaks to so many......can't wait to get to Heaven...

"Being so sick of all of the FX and Formula stuff, I found this film to be genuine Cinema. All I can say is it touched me in so many ways, that I still am sorting it all out. North Fork is a wonderful film. One that brings the viewer's mind out of the gutter and into the heart. The spiritual aspect is so very intriguing to me. Pay attention, as you'll need to use the brain and heart God gave you to follow the story. I think it's possibly a bit over the heads of some, but I feel those are the individuals it speaks to most importantly. I want to view it several more times, just so I can take it all in!

The Industry needs to study this film to realize we do exist.

My thanks to all involved in the making of this film."

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Patricia Arquette plays American doctor Laura Bowman, who takes a holiday to Burma in an attempt to heal her spirit after the murders of her husband and young son. She is left behind in Rangoon during a military crackdown and leaves the city with an aging man who works as a "tour guide." But he is no simple tour guide; he is a professor who introduces her to the life outside of the tourist traps ... the two of them get caught up in the political upheaval and Laura sees with her own eyes how the government betrays and oppresses its own people.

This movie is one of my favorites because of its themes. First, it's informational (describing some of the injustices that are occurring in Burma). Secondly, it's about a woman's struggle to find meaning in life after an incredible loss. Thirdly, it's about compassion and sacrifice, and people coming together - without even knowing each other - to endure pain and fear.

Just about every beautiful scene in this movie is important; nothing is wasted here. It's an earnest and moving film. There is also a very emotional score composed by Hans Zimmer which complements scenes nicely.

A definite recommend, especially to people concerned with human rights ... and people who want to know, "What purpose can I serve?"
What's an example of a movie review?

"Hero and the Terror" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.

I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.
Write a negative movie review.

Very shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy yourself.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the "detective scenes" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember "Falling Down") and the "Family Joy and Cure" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the "killer"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.

Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.

This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I was 19 or 20, years old at the time and living in Salt Lake City, Utah and I still remember the new dome theater, called the century 21. Layback chairs that rocked and a new sound system, large screen and huge open space between the screen and the packed theater. We felt all the excitement of a new preview screening of a film. Ta da da daa da ta da dada dada... I can still hear the opening music ringing trumpet and the crash of cymbals. I loved the interplay of characters and the filmed vistas. I know Peter Finch and Luv and Sally had some trouble with the lip-sink but hey, this was a feel good, go feel better about things film! What I regret is the way they cut the meaningful heart out of it, showed the cut version and then called it a flop. I saw the cut version and I can see it lost its view of the vision it had in the preview edition. Yes I wince a bit at Peter's effort to make love through music but, you know I didn't see it that way when I left the theater. when they surveyed us as we left I regret any comment I made that may have altered the original. I liked it then and still see it while I listen to the music on my LP. Most of my family has heard me sing much of the sound track and I can use the films monologues in our games of "what movie is this". I wish a director's cut on DVD was available. It is available on VHS but its not quite the same. I would particularly like a full serious lord of the rings style commentary about its origins, struggles and triumphs. Picky people should leave things well enough alone. Bring it back!!!!
Determine the sentiment:

This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a perfect work of art.

And it was fun watching confused horror fans getting up and walking out!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is one of the better feel-good films of 1999 with Kate Capshaw leading an all-star cast about a small town and a love letter. First off, the scenery is beautiful, and anyone who sees this film and doesn't want to move to this location is crazy! For the cast, Capshaw is stunning as the lead actress who captivates the emotional roller-coaster role. Tom Everett Scott is charming as the "author" of the note throughout the film, and the always delightful Ellen Degeneres is hilarious! Blythe Danner and the actress who plays the bookstore saleswoman are both terrific, too. Although it was unsuccessful, the film is great as it is both short and sweet and well as very romantic. 10/10

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

positive
A small-town schoolteacher (Geena Davis) slowly begins to realize that she has suffered amnesia and really use to be a secret government assassin! Soon, there are men after her and a small-time private detective (Samuel L. Jackson).

This was action-packed, with some great special effects and really funny one-liners (especially from Jackson). Although the action may get a little silly at times, who cares? After all, aren't movies meant to be a good time?

Craig Bierko is fun as a ruthless villain. The movie itself was an all-around good time. Just don't expect to have to think too much about it because then, if you take it too seriously, then the movie actually won't be fun but stupid instead.

This movie doesn't deserve to be called stupid or any other bad name.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I've never been compelled to write a review about anything, but seeing such bad reviews about such an innovative show made me say something. First, people just have to get over the fact that the voices are different. Once you watch an episode, it never really comes to mind ever again. The humor is original and while, yes, some jokes do carry over from the movie, they are delivered fresh. Some of it is even reminiscent of Shrek--self-referential humor. A lot of these jokes seem aimed at teens or original fans of the movie as much as tweens and younger. Patrick Warburton and Eartha Kitt are both hilarious as they reprise their roles as Kronk and Yzma and their Annie Award nominations were well-warranted.

This show takes some time to love, to really get in "the groove" of things, so to speak. If you ignore the horrible theme song (which really shouldn't warrant that much in the way of how you judge a show since it's only 30 seconds of the overall product), this show is laugh-out-loud hilarity and doesn't lose any of the Emperor's New Groove spirit.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

o dear god i suffered having to watch this film FOUR times in my sisters house and was it dreadful a story of sex and guns and very cheap unexplained acting unless you are at gunpoint being told to watch this avoid it Ja Rule just proved he cannot act Ving Rhames also gave the most dreadful acting ever in any of his films there was not one part of this film made me laugh or make me jump or feel any emotion i would be surprised people actually enjoyed this i have seem some dreadful films in my life but this would be in my five worst films ever the music in it wasn't good and the storyline i think was made up by a couple of guys who ordered a pizza and just sat down wrote ten bullet points and then made it into a film absolutely dreadful
Alfred Hitchcock's "Saboteur" (1942) (not to be confused with another Hitchcock film, "Sabotage" made in 1936 which has a completely different plot) is not the Master of Suspense greatest film. It dose not have the depth of "Vertigo" (1958) nor the brooding atmosphere of "Rebbeca" (1940) and it certainly dose not have the emotional impact and acting talent that can be found in "Notorious" (1946), but what it dose have is thrills, adventure and a nail biting climax. The two leads, admittedly, are quite weak. It is easy to understand why Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper for the Robert Cummings role and Barbara Stanwyck for the role that was taken by Priscilla Lane. Also, the patriotic speeches that Cuumming says (that were written by Dorothy Parker) have dated badly, and the encounter with circus troupe is poorly done (the beard on the bearded lady is clearly false). However, the last half hour is edge-of-your-seat viewing, the climax atop the Stature of Liberty is very well done, and the film is a clear predecessor of "North By Northwest" (1959). The two villains, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd are very good and the beginning fire at the Aircraft Factory is a superb sequence. This not the best film Hitch made, but it is surly one of his most entertaining.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).

This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.

As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.

If I could have given this a zero I would have.

Avoid this film at all costs.
Write a positive movie review.

Rented the video for a slow Saturday night. First viewing I thought it was funny. Took a while to get used to the American caricatures (here we're more attuned to British grotesques) but very enjoyable. 

Watched it again next night and really warmed to it. The characters seemed more human - lovable, even. A film one could watch several times and get more out of it each time. However, my wife *hated* it. No accounting for tastes in humour I suppose.
Barricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.

I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.

Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.

Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.

Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.

Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door? 

Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.

This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.

But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.

Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:

- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.

- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"

- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:

"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."

- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.

And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.
What's an example of a movie review?

In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...

Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.

There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.

Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.

Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.

There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.

The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.

Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"River's Edge" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that also saw "Blue Velvet", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost little of its power and remains much better than the overrated "Kids". The previews for "Kids" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth. In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock value. "River's Edge" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic.

Keanu Reeves, known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper (on the comeback trail with this, "Blue Velvet", and "Hoosiers") gives a great performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover, while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck. As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves.

The film is overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes clichéd high school flick such as "The Breakfast Club". This is a shocking piece of nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check out a Canadian film from 1981 called "Out of the Blue", directed by Dennis Hopper. Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its obscurity, may have been an influence on "River's Edge". (7/10)
Determine the sentiment:

Having just borrowing the Series one DVD collection from my somewhat obsessive brother, I was expecting to get through the first couple of episodes and handing it back. I have just found myself yelling at the screen for ending the first season on a cliff-hanger - a mere week later and I've watched the entire season. Where I found the time for this I have no idea.

This show is great. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it has likeable characters who are well acted, and the special effects (ignoring the odd tacky puppet here and there) are "special" enough to give it that polished feel. At first, I didn't realise it was filmed mostly here, and it seemed odd to hear so many Aussie accents on a Sci-Fi show - it was most amusing for the main character (John) to land back in Sydney midway through the first season.

I believe this show's biggest strength is the vision that the creators of the show obviously had. They have gradually introduced new aspects of the characters that have explain previous actions, and the continue to smatter John's conversations with slang in an amusing and unforced way. On top of that, having watched the entire Voyager and Next Gen series, I see little plot rip-off - so it has managed to maintain a sense of originality throughout the entire first season. I hope the rest of it is as good.

Farscape is not like any other Sci-Fi that I've enjoyed in the past. I heard that the fourth season wasn't as good as the first three, and I am now quite annoyed that they cancelled it before the 5th. I hope that they revive this show - with the same actors in either a movie or another series. It would be a shame to leave so many plot lines unfinished as I imagine that with a show that's had so much thought put into it, to have it axed without adequate warning will leave me feeling robbed.

Gotta go now... heading back to my brother's place to snaffle the 2nd season.

V.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.

 To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I never want to see this movie again!

Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.

Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!

Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! 

I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!
Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.

Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.

Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.

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

negative