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

A young couple decides to runaway to sunny California. They never reach their destination as they decide to pull over at the Rest Stop.

After a fight with her boyfriend, Nicole Carrow insists on pulling in to a rest stop. When she is ready to leave, she exits the bathroom to find her boyfriend has disappeared with their car, leaving her trapped on the back roads of Texas with only an abandoned camper van to keep her company.

Rest Stop is one of those cheap and tacky horror movies that could become a cult classic. Will Rest Stop become a cult classic you may ask? Well the three elements that you need to become a cult classic are gore, sex and artistic merit. Rest stop has bucket loads of gore, and while I do not want to give too much away, it contains oodles of blood-soaked nastiness. This movie has everything from the bad guy running over a cop's legs with his car several times to him making use of a pneumatic drill on a girl's leg. At times, it can be about as bloody as a film can get. It also has a gratuitous and yet somehow quite intimate love scene in the opening minutes of the film. Therefore, the sex is covered. Now the hard one  does it have any artistic merit? You never get to see the bad guy's face  you see glimpses, profiles, shadowy silhouettes. He is a faceless, relentless, monster, which alone scores highly on the artistic merit scale. The movie has very few characters in it apart from the main protagonist  Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander). Since she spends a large part of the film on her own, she cannot reveal her thoughts in the course of a conversation, but must speak them aloud so that we, the audience, know what she is thinking. At times, this can be slightly irritating; however, it is a brave step by the writer (John Shiban) and it does work for the majority of the film. As an audience knows, being completely alone and isolated from civilisation is frightening enough even when you are not being chased by psychotic killers.

So, will Rest Stop become a cult classic? It probably will because along the gore, sex and arguable artistic merit, it also has plenty of chills, an interesting and inventive plot and gives rise to a lot of shouting at the screen as the main character does plenty of things you should definitely not do when running from a psychotic killer. (What fun are horror movies if you cannot complain about the stupidity of the victims?)
We all know bits and pieces of Gulliver's travels. Tiny people, yeah, sure. Liliputians. Giants too, some of us may recall. Some might remember the word yahoo comes from here. That's were it stops for most people.

Swift's book is omnipresent in school libraries. That's were i first read it, and there's were a lot of people read it for the last time. It is treacherously lightly written, like many of the old adventure books. Children can read it. Still, it's dripping with satire, black and uncompromising. That's something I think most screen writers forget when they adapt this movie.

This movie remembers, however. Our hero, Ted Danson, gives a credible and serious performance as the world-adjusted man who's thrown to mysterious countries so like our own. Gulliver's travels criticizes everything. Theists, scientists, government, commonfolk, ethnicity, humanity itself. Few are spared, and most of the satire is just as fresh today.

While very faithful to the story, the movie also dares adding new angles, all which work very well. The screen writer deserves all credit for managing to balance so well between time and activity(it's not boring, that is).

Production values are way beyond a TV movie. With some marketing this movie would have done well at the box office. All of the fantastic worlds Gulliver visits are well-made, explained in detail and often very funny, much like Swift's book.

Actors are all pros, since this is a British production. Mary Steenburgen stands out, along with James Fox's Dr. Bates, the chillingly cruel doctor who, much like nurse Ratched, only wants the patient's best.

So, a modest proposal, if you ever get the chance to get this movie, do so. It's a real treat.

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

positive
Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed "real half-caste", it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.

At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on "Blair Witch Project" really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.

Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Maybe my rating should have been a 9, but the film absolutely stunned me when viewing it first time and my latest viewing confirmed my initial belief. Stylish yes, every scene has crafted scoped views, terrific angles with a perfect sound side accompanying them.

Put on top great acting from especially Toni Servillo, garner it with one of the most beautiful and charming women in Olivia Magnani, and a fine plot and you will end up seeing this small masterpiece over and over.

Paulo Sorrentinos next movie "L'Amico De Famiglia", which is in competition in this years Cannes Festival, will be eagerly awaited.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.

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

negative
What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying "is this it". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.
Determine the sentiment:

This series, made for Televisión Española (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.

Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.

Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.

The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's rôle as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.

Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)

If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.


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

negative
Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes: 

**SPOILERS** 

The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.

The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself.

And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.

**END SPOILERS**

infinity stars

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

positive
I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this. 

Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example. 

The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible. 

And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness. 

As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying "That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next." And the girl responding "yeah, quite surprising." and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.

I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.

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

negative
These guys are excellent and anything they put out to the public is first class. The musicianship of this band is amazing and we should all be very thankful we live in a world where Rush exists. Future generations will never be able to see such mastery live and in person. Get this DVD and you will enjoy it throughly!! I was recently able to see these incredible musicians play in Houston, TX and was blown away. I have not missed a show since power windows and I have to say that they are better than ever. Everyone should embrace these guys and teach others what real musicianship is! There will never be such a tight and well put together trio again in our lifetime. Lets just hope and pray that they do not retire anytime soon!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This comment is meant mainly as a warning to the people who might be attracted to the title by its (temporarily)high user rating which I find frankly puzzling. The reasons why I didn't like this title are following:

1. The directer must have had some doubts whether to make a Jackie-Chan-type of a flick or a dark Oedipian tragedy. As a result, in terms of genre, the film falls between two stools, as the tragic and comic elements clash and cancel out each other rather than make a harmonious whole.

2. The characters' motives and behaviors are incoherent and unconvincing. Psychological truth and logic are sadly missing.

3. Absurd casting. I don't blame the actors, for it is a hard thing to create a convincing character by acting alone, if there is scarce logic in the script. However, why is there an apparent age difference of about 15 years between the leading two actors, whose ages in the film can't differ by more than 3-4?

4. To me the film was poor entertainment primarily because of point 2. If you can't find a character you could sympathize with it is hard to follow the story with interest. When you finally learn the reason of what happened to the main protagonist, it turns out to make no sense.

5. Some films apart from being entertaining are also thought-provoking. Having seen this film, I began to wonder whether the thought the director tried to provoke was not that incestuous relationships could be perfectly wholesome and delightful. I cannot put any other construction on the ending. 

6. The film is rife with totally unnecessary violence. Violence in a film (and elsewhere) is a good thing, if it serves an important and worthy purpose. Purposes can be different and I don't want to enter into this broad subject. Let me just say I don't object to violence in such films as "Saving Private Ryan", "The Passion of the Christ" or "The Pulp Fiction". In "Oldboy" the scenes of torture and suffering are prolonged and graphic (or aural). What for? I do not know. Personally, I don't derive any satisfaction from watching teeth being extracted with a hammer or hear a man cut off his tongue with scissors and then see him choking on his own blood etc. etc. 

7. The film reminds me a little of Japanese porno mangas in its fixation on incest and young Asian girls' panties, urinating and the like. It appears there is a minority who actually enjoy this kind of thing. If you're one of them, you might find this film enjoyable.

In short, I do not recommend this film either as entertainment or "food for thought". Where it isn't silly, it is disgusting. Don't waste your time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast. So, I would say the ending left me disappointed.

I thought that the characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing it.

In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written/Edited Ending. Still, Go See It!!!
This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.

The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.

Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.

Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?

Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained. 

Awful film on the whole.

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

negative
I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.

No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to "kill" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.

Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.

The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.

The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.

I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.

If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I found the film quite good for what I was expecting. Although I weary, because I have a fear of injection needles, I sort of came to expect when they were coming. So if you're not into needles, blood, the human body, and some good medical fun, put this movie back and rent another. As the other user commented, I was also please at the German attempt at a slasher film. I'm an American who just moved to Germany to stay with a family and saw this lying on the shelf. I love psychological thrillers, and I'd say this is somewhere along those lines. A character falls into places and feels misconstrued. While trying to dig her way out and find some truth to a situation, things get a little sticky and other aren't so sure she's on the right track. So throughout the film you're kept on edge about who's anatomy you might catch a glimpse of and who's rounding the next corner.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.

Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.

Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.

Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.

Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Great film. No gratuitous gimmicks like in most Hollywood films. Everything supported the suspense of the plot. B&w gave it a basic, no-frills feel also. In short, it was visceral in its simplicity of cinematography and cast.

Following serves as an interesting contrast to Memento. Characters in both used manipulation and subterfuge extensively. In that sense, both reminded me somewhat of "In the Company of Men," also highly recommendable. One difference between Nolan's two films is that Memento was a little easier for me to follow, given that the b&w scenes progress in a constant chronological direction, and so do those in color. I don't think that was true of Following, where scenes seemed to be shown at random. If you have the choice between VCR and DVD, I'd highly recommend DVD, since that gives you the option of watching the movie a second time in chronological order, not just in the scrambled (albeit ingenuous) order presented by Nolan. It also makes it easier, upon a second viewing, to piece the order together for yourself, if you want to.

As another viewer noted, one of the best things about both this movie and Memento is that none of the cast were famous. They were characters, not big-name actors who brought in personas developed in other movies.

Given certain similarities in the plots, I wonder if Memento is sort of a remake of Following, but intended to reach a bigger audience, like Edward Burns made She's the One in the mold of -- and with largely the same cast as -- The Brothers McMullan.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A lot of people say the end did not make sense, but it did. With the female vampire dead the link to earth was broken and the ship took off, having picked up a lot of Lifeforce from hundreds of thousands of souls. Enough to re-energize those hexagon cells and create new bat creatures. It seems they do not have carnal sex, like vampires of legend. 

vampire bats from outer space may be ludicrous, but killing them with with a shot to qui force center below the heart is consistent. All you can ask for is consistency. The viewer has to suspend disbelief, even for scifi. 

The only problem is having to be a sword or stake, not bullets. That puts in a supernatural twist that does not fit with sci-fi. So that is a problem. 

The only major inconsistency I found is killing the male vampires with the sword, but the soul of the girl and Carlsen go up to the ship. I assume the males souls also went up the ship, but not shown. 

What about all the humans killed? Do their qui forces ("souls") go up to the ship as discrete entities, are does all the lifeforce get merged into one, for use as ship sees fit? In other words, all the human souls that went to the ship could be re-incarnated as bat creatures. 

The basic concept is no more ridiculous than Star Wars "Force" or even re-incarnation. 

This movie was over the top, kitchen sink (Dawn of the Dead meets Alien meets Dracula), but in many ways profound. It was also a beautiful love story. The beginning and end were ethereal. It both began ("what is happening to me") and ended as a love story. 

Most of the criticism of the movie is about its being bizarre.So what? Bizarre is an art form. As far as being ludicrous, it all fits. The plague concept is much more interesting and subtle than the Aliens just killing people. Maybe they didn't need Patrick Steward's blood to form an image of the girl, but it was a very far out, surreal, scene. 

Another reason the movie is hated is because of the end. But the end fits perfectly with the beginning. People are so wrapped up in the nude girl that they miss the movie's core. Its a lover story,from start to finish. It starts with Carlsen and the girl on the alien spaceship and finished same way. So it fits perfectly. Most people are fixated on the hero killing the monster, and this movie did not end that way, which is precisely why I love it. 

Instead, it has a happy ending, with the 2 of them going back to ship, to be reborn. Way cooler than the hero kills monster end, but that is exactly why it bombed. It was not a straight-up horror or even scifi/horror at all, but a love story, with a beautiful beginning and end. All those souls twinkling on the ship. And the crystal room pulsating with new life. 

Most people can't deal with a love story that is also Alien meets Dawn of the Dead meets Dracula.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Not many television shows appeal to quite as many different kinds of fans like Farscape does...I know youngsters and 30/40+ years old;fans both Male and Female in as many different countries as you can think of that just adore this T.V miniseries. It has elements that can be found in almost every other show on T.V, character driven drama that could be from an Australian soap opera; yet in the same episode it has science fact & fiction that would give even the hardiest "Trekkie" a run for his money in the brainbender stakes! Wormhole theory, Time Travel in true equational form...Magnificent. It embraces cultures from all over the map as the possibilities are endless having multiple stars and therefore thousands of planets to choose from.

With such a broad scope; it would be expected that nothing would be able to keep up the illusion for long, but here is where "Farscape" really comes into it's own element...It succeeds where all others have failed, especially the likes of Star Trek (a universe with practically zero Kaos element!) They ran out of ideas pretty quickly + kept rehashing them! Over the course of 4 seasons they manage to keep the audience's attention using good continuity and constant character evolution with multiple threads to every episode with unique personal touches to camera that are specific to certain character groups within the whole. This structure allows for an extremely large area of subject matter as loyalties are forged and broken in many ways on many many issues. I happened to see the pilot (Premiere) in passing and just had to keep tuning in after that to see if Crichton would ever "Get the girl", after seeing them all on television I was delighted to see them available on DVD & I have to admit that it was the only thing that kept me sane whilst I had to do a 12 hour night shift and developed chronic insomnia...Farscape was the only thing to get me through those extremely long nights...

Do yourself a favour; Watch the pilot and see what I mean...

Farscape Comet
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Truly flatulent script, and I was very disappointed with Marc Singer for agreeing to be in it.

I actually walked out of the theater about 15-20 minutes into it, and demanded my money back. I have actually walked out of a movie only 3 times in my life (I am 43 years old) and this is the only one that made me mad enough to demand my ticket price back. If I could have, I would have gotten a refund on the popcorn, too. This was a truly lousy movie, and there is no excuse.

For one thing, how does someone who was raised as a pre-tech barbarian learn to DRIVE A CAR? IN California!!!? (Driving a car is a somewhat tricky skill, and in California, even tricker...I should know, I live there.)
On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.

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

negative
If this movie would have been in English, all critics would have trashed it. The language is extremely bad, the scenes are awfully directed and it's not at all funny. After the movie I thought that this movie could have been written by an 8th grader, at least if you consider the lack of believable characters and the fixation on certain male body parts. (oh, on dogs as well...) The story is just plain nonsense compared to the more mature Vingar av glas that premiered almost at the same time. Of course the public chose Jalla! Jalla! while Vingar av glas got little attention.

What was really disturbing for me was the fact that the movie looked really bad. That was probably due to the fact that first time director Josef Fares used really cheap camera equipment and then decided to just play around with it, for fun I suppose. The result, however, is a movie that can easily be split into 12 short films with a new directorial style in each one of them. This was very frustrating. Maybe Josef Fares should have stayed with his short films since that seems to be the only art form he can master.

Another disturbing fact is that the story does not hold together. At several times in the middle of the movie, the story has to move on very quickly and the characters then run into one another in a way that is just too unbelievable. 

And then I have not mentioned the 2-dimensional characters, especially those in the supporting roles. 

Even though I consider this one of the worst Swedish films of the 90s as well as one of the most overrated, it is kind of understandable that the public liked it. I mean, bad taste has always been the trademark of the masses...

I'm more surprised that the critics enjoyed it. They should have known better...

Grade 2 of 10



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

negative
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. If I wasn't watching it for free, I would have never finished it. The creators of this film should be ashamed of themselves. It seems like this is supposed to be a film in the vein of Scary Movie and Date Movie (a terrible movie, but 10x better than this one), but failed miserably. The only jokes in this movie seem to be based on slapstick. A guy falls down, someone gets hit by a bus, etc. None of the ideas are clever, basically the worst premise for a movie ever. The plot (or lack thereof) is completely retarded. The plot seems to center around the coach and his family, however there are so many other things going on in the movie it is completely ridiculous. Terrible, terrible movie.

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

negative
I had never heard of this film and only got it because I am a Martin Sheen fan. Now I am stunned as to why it did not receive the praise and recognition that it truly deserves. The four characters all make you feel for them, the father trying to assert his authority, the mother still clinging to traditional family values and both trying to keep up appearances despite the total fragmentation of their family, the daughter wanting her own life and the son haunted by his experiences in Vietnam. One felt that this was a scenario that must have been played out in thousands of 'ordinary' families after Vietnam. Emilio Estevez as Jeremy was superb - totally unhinged by his war experience which none of his family could relate to. The screen chemistry between him and his real-life father Martin Sheen was amazing. And there were times when Emilio's anguished face was so like Martin's in "Apocalypse Now". I feel sure that just as Martin has counted Apocalype as one of his best films, Emilio will count this one as one of his best too. The scene with the gun was totally mind-blowing, as all the emotions were there on the family's faces. Brilliant acting by Estevez, Sheen and Kathy Bates. I watched the film for the first time last night - and today the lead story in the news was about a Gulf War veteran who had shot several members of his family. How many more young men are going to have their lives destroyed by war?

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farväl Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna Märta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I just saw "Everything is Illuminated" at the Telluride Film Festival. This is a truly remarkable film. Very emotional, funny at times and heart-warming. Bring your handkerchiefs! For those of you who enjoy a movie that brings tears to your eyes, I'm reminded of the endings of "Babette's Feast" and "The Notebook." The stories were completely different but had that same emotional power to bring tears to my eyes, just as this film did.

No spoilers here. The summary is, as IMDb describes, a young man's journey to the Ukraine to follow his roots and find the village where his father grew up.

The dialog is in English and Ukrainian (and Russian too, I believe). This allows for some wonderfully linguistically-based moments as one character interprets, more or less faithfully, for the English speaker in the group, depending on the circumstances.

The scenery is wonderful and the musical score is a treat with wonderful Eastern European influences. Be sure you stay through the credits for the final tune.

This is Lieve Schreiber's directorial debut and is well done. I give this film a 9, one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I recommend it highly.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The movie was surprisingly wonderful especially considering the last sequel. The third was dark, and semi-interesting but it wasn't nearly as fun or enjoyable as this. It is filled with comedic lines about Martha Stuart, doll's anatomy, masturbation, and it was actually done effectively during gruesome and disturbing images. The movie wasn't scary or suspenseful and I'm sure that it wasn't the director's intention. It was fun because of the silliness, Jennifer Tilly's over the top and sexy performance. The puppetry of the dolls were so well handled, the movement of mouth, lips, tears in eyes, knife in chest, and the costumes. The dolls were just marvelous and it made the gruesome deaths more enoyable considering the fact that they were done by wonderful dolls. The new Chucky look was great and Tiffany was very cute. A few scenes with Chucky hugging the human Tiffany even made my father smile. Jesse and Jade were surprisingly well- very attractive and the special effects were cool. The ending was so unsuspected and the fact that they could make another as good is quite unlikely. It may not be as suspenseful as movies like Halloween H2O or Urban Legend, but it is certainly more fun!!!!

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

positive