cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.

It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.

In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers/writers/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.

Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again.
Determine the sentiment:

What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as "stable" and "unimaginative", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.

The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.

The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.

It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.

The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.

The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.

I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Over 21 the film version of the Ruth Gordon play which detailed her experiences trying to keep the marriage together with Garson Kanin after he'd gone in the service provides Irene Dunne with one of her better later roles on the big screen. It's also in keeping with what was then an upbeat spirit in America about how we would not screw up the peace as we did in the first World War and sow the seeds of yet another global conflict.

The play Ruth Gordon wrote and starred in herself ran for 221 performances in 1944 on Broadway and was confined simply to the bungalow that Gordon and Harvey Stephens who was the male lead had on a training base. If you look on the Broadway credits list it says that the production was 'staged' by George S. Kaufman as opposed to being directed by him. I'm not sure of the distinction, but I can imagine that with a wit and will as strong as Kaufman's it must have been an interesting period putting the production together before opening night.

When Columbia bought the screen rights, Sidney Buchman had to do some considerable script reconstruction to move the action beyond the bungalow. The film bears very little trace of its stage origins.

Alexander Knox plays the husband and Charles Coburn the employer of both Dunne and Knox who are writers. Knox has graduated to not only editor, but featured columnist. His words and thoughts help sell the paper and Coburn is in a bind. But Knox feels he has to get into the war, the seminal event of his time in order to speak authoritatively on the kind of post war world he wants. This was not an uncommon theme in those years. 

Irene Dunne has some good comic moments, the kind she used to have when she was appearing opposite Cary Grant. In fact Garson Kanin directed both of them in My Favorite Wife a few years earlier. Coburn is his usual cantankerous old water buffalo of a boss who ultimately has a good heart.

Over 21 was an optimistic picture which sad to say wasn't accurate about what the Allies and I mean all of them could bring to the peace conferences to create a better world. Still hopefully a new generation will get it right.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

With "Anatomy" the german film producers have tried to make something totally new. Usually there just drama or comedy movies - in the horror genre is(or was) totally new at that time.

The story's also new and shocking. Franka Potente plays her role brilliant and I bet you won't find out who's the murderer. It's possible, but difficult. A really great movie with a lot of talented actors.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I actually own this movie which is the MST3K version called "Cave Dwellers" which is really the only way anyone could really watch a movie like this. If it weren't for Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo constantly making wisecracks, it wouldn't be possible to sit through this piece of crap. You have a hero called Ator who looks a lot like Jeff Spigoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and appears only slightly more intelligent, just without being stoned. He takes on cavemen (the cave dwellers?) invisible guys, a giant snake (with a bunch of anal retentive snakes that like to line up all the skulls to face the same way), invents a hang glider which suspiciously looks like a modern aluminum one with some cheap vines wrapped around it, and then does battle with the evil John Saxon-looking dude. Then he rides off on his horse across the tire tracks where someone's been four-wheeling.

Yes, I got most of that from MST3K, which as I said is the only way to watch this turkey of a movie. If it weren't for that, it would get zero stars.

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

negative
This was a sad waste of two such promising actors. Chris Klein's character was unlikable from the start and never made an improvement. What did she see in him?? He was rarely kind, never thankful for what he does have...and a coward. Pass this one by on the shelves. You'll be glad you did.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one "successful" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.

Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.

The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.

The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.
Write a positive movie review.

I can't say I enjoyed this as much as "The Big Lebowski" or "Raising Arizona," and felt a little slighted, but "O Brother" is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal. 

Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or "The Dukes of Hazzard" or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like "A Bronx Tale." When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for "The Perfect Storm"--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).

Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song "A Man of Constant Sorrow." The DVD also contains the music video for that song. 

Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out. 

My score: 7 (out of 10)
This film is about a party put together by the high school "scary girl." Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.

Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?

I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft "7-11" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the "good girl" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
I wish that all the mockumentaries and horror spoofs would go away. If you are going to investigate loch ness..do it for real. Enough of the bull****. Same with horror and sci-fi..if you are going to make a movie and it is supposed to be scary..make it scary..not funny. I hate when watching a horror movie and the character is fighting for their life(or running or whatever..their life is at stake) and they are cracking jokes. This never happens..cmon where have all the good directors gone? I think horror and sci-fi have really gone down the tube since the 70's. I long for the days that a horror flick was scary..all this "scary movie" crap is for the birds. This film is also for the birds. If you really would like to see a good investigation or here serious talk...don't expect it in this video.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I always wanted to see this film and when I finally got to I knew I was in for a nice surprise when John Boorman's name appeared on the screen. Known mostly for his epic films (he directed the first Conan and wrote Apocalypse Now) put together in the classic Hollywood structure, this one fits nicely with his catalog.

I also can't express how perfect the timing was considering that Myanmar (Burma) is once again experiencing an uprising by monks and students against the military "junta" run government which is the very same one (there has been a change of leadership since but it's essentially the same) depicted in the movie from 1988. Now more than ever this film needs to be aired on television (caught it on IFC) because of recent events.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.

Boran.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Rating: *1/2 out of ****

"The Net" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'. 

Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. "The Net" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...

What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? "A Time to Kill", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.

The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare "The Net" with it, is it...?

The only reason to see "The Net" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.

DELETE this film from your mind!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Changi has a delightfully fresh script, acted superbly by both young and old actors alike. John Doyle has done an excellent job bringing humour to a tragic true story, keeping a sometimes sad story fun and engrossing, particularly to those of us not familiar with the events of South East Asia during WW2.

John Doyle's parallel story line successfully bridges the gap between past and present, allowing the audience insight into the long-term effect war had on the prisoners and their family's lives as well as providing the basis for an excellent narrative which nicely rounds out the tales, both individual and collective. Doyle deserves praise for this effort. We have in the past been delighted by his abundant and quick-witted humour as evidenced in his long running collaboration with Greg Pickhaver as `Roy & H.G.'

As the series is approaching half way, we are looking forward to how the story develops with anticipation.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.

The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.

Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.

The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.

If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.

Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think "how can a movie be so sadly stupid", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).

These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!

Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.

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

negative
OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.

Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.

The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about "these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'" but I could safely say that "Wax" was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.

In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
For a series that was inspired by Kolchak, it's ironic that The X Files first attempt at a vampire episode should land squarely on it's ass. 3 has always puzzled me and - at the risk of sounding like the dreadful Hans Keller - I've often wondered if I'm missing the point. The story feels like a jigsaw that has pieces that don't match the box, and the result is you spending a cosy evening by the fire trying to match sky that is really sea. This incomplete feeling remains no matter how many times you revisit the episode and no matter how much attention you give it. I know that this review puts me in danger of being dragged to Whitby by teenage vampires who'll drink my blood while listening to Busted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've always been a werewolf man myself.

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

negative
Steven Seagal played in many action movies. Most of them were bad but not bad as The Patriot. This one is a Z-series action low-budget movie. After Operation Delta Force, Act of War, The Substitute 2, Plato's Run, The Base, Drive, Sabotage, etc comes The Patriot. Now Steven Seagal is sure to be considered as a bad actor like Mark Dacascos, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Treat Williams, Jack Scalia, Gary Busey, Chuck Norris, Michael Madsen and many others. The scenario was full of holes and the characters were not realistic (maybe because of the very bad actors) and the 4.25 bucks you spend by renting The Patriot are called Lost Money!!! I give it 0and a half( for laughs) out of 5.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.

Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.

Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.

Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
ý thýnk uzak ýs the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise yo you will love this movie please watch it

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

positive
Thursday June 9, 9:15pm Egyptian Theater Saturday June 11, 2:00pm Uptown Theater

Being loved and belonging is essential for most children. Those born to Vietnamese mothers and GI fathers often found neither. The Beautiful Country is the story of one such child, Binh, rejected by his rural village then struggling to find his American father. The film begins with green and wild country but descends into grimy sweaty ugliness and boredom. The considerable talents of Tim Roth and Temuera Morrison are wasted in pointless and ill conceived roles aboard the rusting freighter carrying Binh and is dying brother across the ocean with what appear to be stock shots of stormy seas. New York City offers slave labor and cliché characters. While very uneven from it's start the great curiosity of this film is the final segment. Nick Nolte is given top billing among the cast. I jokingly suggested he would probably be in the final scene only and was not far from the truth. As the journey brings Binh to Texas and his father the film takes on a serene and austere simplicity. A tenuous cohabitation knits these two men together into a family of father and son. The ninety odd minutes of garbage we have just watched is rewarded by a profound and subtle performance from Nolte as they slowly interact. The credits rolled and I was surprised to see the names of Badlands executive producer Edward Pressman and West Texas native Terrence Malick.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Man, I just cant believe this movie. I have watched it entirely (believe me, I have done this !) and the best part was the traillers on the beginning (and I hate traillers!!!!).

No plot, no acting, no nothing. I was watching the movie and thinking, "When this is going to start" ? It never started. How people can spend money and time to make such a crap ?

The "plot": A Dog gets bitten by a bat and get rabies - Okay, until now no problem, nothing special but OK. Now the rest of the movie will be - the Dog will chase people!!! thats it, nothing else!!! Now add to this some of the worse actings/actors I have ever seem, some completely irrealistic scenes (and some others really idiotic, like the child cant breath and the mother gives him a big and strong hug to see if he gets better), and a very lame ending, thats it, here you have CRAP... ops!.... CUJO.

Do your self a favor and make something more worthy, like hiting your head against the wall or play chess with yourself.

ZERO out of 10.

Gabriel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A real let down, the novel is such a brilliant stomach churning journey into madness but this made for TV movie style nonsense is turgid and painfully slow. Stick to Mike Hammer. I find it hard to believe that no body has made a brilliant version of this book, Kubrick gushes over it on the cover, he should have taken over the reins on this one. Stacey Keach is too soppy as Lou Ford, and the whole thing has the same production values as that seventies TV spin off, of Planet Of The Apes. I thoroughly recommend that you go out and buy lots of Jim Thompson novels though, actually The Grifters isn't done too badly, thats one of his, starring Jon Cusak.

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

negative
Wow, even American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have more adult stuff now than WWE ( at least the auditions has a number of people abusing the judges) and here is WWE, plodding with one of the worst moves in TV history, by changing itself into PG. Now when I switch sometimes to see what's going on, this is what I get:

1) Hornswoggle, the ugly midget sharing his space with the main eventers for apparently no reason except for thrilling the young fans and of course beating Chavo Guerrero, a capable wrestler, in every match

2) A guest host (arghh....!) every week to spoil the teaspoon of fun which was otherwise present. All these host are cheap B-grade celebs trying to catapult to fame again, by cracking horrendous, 5 year old jokes and making silly references.

3) Cryme Time and a female wrestler (forgot her name, most probably Eve) giving lessons on various "street" words (sob) which are neither street nor cool. They were fun before, stealing stuff and being loud mouths.

4) The divas are clad in unwatchable outfits, tying their best to look "sexy, smart and powerful (by the way, I hate this catchphrase) Remember when Torrie, Trish and Sable were there? Those were the times. Plus these divas are bad wrestlers, which adds to the misery. I have seen some old matches of WWE in Vintage collection and the divas over there were "professional" not amateur.

5) PG move restricts so many things: almost no blood during matches, DX being terribly irritating, John Cena doing even more of his patriotism act, crowd containing many children (who are so annoying), almost no "heels" etc

6) And yeah, why keep PPVs so often. One in every month, have they lost it? No actual feud or rivalry is ever created and the ones that are done look fake and just-till-the-PPV-gets-over ones.

7)Vintage Michael Cole and a few of his quotes:

" Ladies and Gentlemen, you are watching the longest running television show in history" (every week"

" The BRUTAL and VICIOUS assault by (he doesn't use it for anyone else) Randy Orton/Legacy"

" A vicious attack on Stephanie McMohan, Triple-H's husband!!!???"

WWE is now almost towards its demise. Hope Vince gets up from his slumber and does something ( bring back the TV-14 or attitude era) 2 out of 10 for the current state of WWE.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I can't stand people who comment on this program or other HBO programs as "too graphic" or "unnecessarily graphic" or that they contain "gratuitous nudity/violence/sodomy etc".

Guess what? Prison life isn't PG-13. The "gratuitous" graphic content is TRUE TO LIFE of this situation. Prison contains inmate rape/killings/drug deals and showers. If you don't like it, then don't watch the program. I'm certainly no fan of prison rape, but if it was left out of the show I'd be surprised and lend the show less credibility. If the prisoners didn't curse, it would just be silly. Sure it's gratuitous language, but that is REALISTIC.

The show is good, some of the viewers....not so much, I guess.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make "hash" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going "Woo woo woo woo". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to "slow the bull down so he can get off", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry "magically" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Alright, let me break it down for ya... Haggard is probably one of the funniest pointless movies you'll ever see. It's got a mixture of a unique storyline about a guy having girl troubles and everything going backwards for him mixed in with countless humorous scenes that will keep you laughing throughout the whole movie, basically, if you've seen jackass or the CKY series, you'd know what to expect for humor, considering it has most of the people from those movies. Overall... i just had to give it a 10/10 because its one of my favorite movies of all time.

~F0rs4k3n

(P.S.) Haggard rules!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.

A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.

Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.

As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.

I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.
H.O.T.S. is a fun film for a trip back to when skin flicks had a more positive fun-filled agenda. They were made simply to titillate and have a few laughs. Everything seems less cynical and jaded. The girls all have natural figures and some are Playboy playmates. The simple plot deals with a group of young women who open a non-sanctioned sorority house to get back at the snooty sorority girls who spurned and insulted them. Instead of the mean spirited tricks of today, most of the hijinks are simply innocent fun. The women are decent actresses for this genre and are mostly very attractive. To keep our attention between the topless scenes, we have mafia henchmen, a stolen bear, a hot air balloon, a funky house mother, and the cheapest robot ever seen. There's even Danny Bonnaducci of the Partridge Family. If you have a sense of humor then let yourself go and enjoy some light entertainment.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a standard action flick as we have seen them many times before. Not much action in this one though. Again it's about the guy protecting the president. He's macho - as usual, and at the same time soft and melancholic - as usual. Does he have the guts to take a bullet for the president?! And then there's the girl and the usual conservative flirting around. Stereotypical and predictable to the last toe-crumbling minute.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!

This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!

She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!

Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!

After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.

Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I would like to know if "The Outsiders" (Australian TV series) will ever be released on DVD sometime in the future? And is the music (Title Theme) available on CD?

There was only one series of 13 episodes of this drama and should have gone on to at least three or even four series in total.

The Young German Actor in the series was also in a German TV series called "Black Forest Clinic" which aired here in the UK with English dialogue superimposed with the lip-sync. 

I look forward to hearing any comments from TV Industry personnel on the above questions, thank you in advance.
Going to need to take a deep breath for this one...

Terrible special effects that tried to reach far beyond the limitations of the budget. Blatant and unashamed plagiarism of other sci-fi movies (like Pitch Black). Terrible acting. Endless slow motion scenes of characters walking aimlessly across sand dunes. Meandering dialogue that does nothing to further the story. Characters wearing turtle neck sweaters on a desert planet with two suns. A "cargo" ship staffed by a camouflage-wearing crew of gun-toting soldiers (why exactly would you need forest-camouflage in space anyway?). Some of the worst casting choices in the history of no-budget film-making - a steroid swollen "captain" who comes across more like a muscle-beach jock than a trustworthy commander, and a "convict" who looks and acts about as dangerous as a bunny rabbit. 70 minutes in length, 35 of which could have been trimmed out if the director had any concept of "compression of time through editing"...

I won't go on. Suffice it to say that while some components of this awful movie can (and should) be forgiven due to it's low budget; the bad conception, laughable plot holes, and snore-inducing script are unforgivable on *any* budget. The end result is a tedious, dull, waste of time. Sorry guys, I hate to be so harsh on an amateur film, but you've no excuse for turning out this kind of work.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.

I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.

And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat? 

Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.

"Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.

I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.

Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.

Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.

Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.

The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.

All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today.