cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Dracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.

Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.

The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.

The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Luchino Visconti was and is one of the most influential cultural figures of his generation, but Adam Low (the director of this thing) allows the stronger voice to be Helmut Berger's! How can it be? What a missed opportunity! We come out of this ordeal knowing less of what made the Master great and more about the things one shouldn't care at all. The beautiful images belong to Visconti's world, the embarrassing interviews to the likes of Berger and Zeffirelli to Adam Low's tiny little world. A must to avoid!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.

"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".

"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.

One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.

What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.

After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.

My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.
Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.

Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as "bait" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.

Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind.

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

negative
Seems like M.Hazanavicius is back!The man behind "la classe américaine" comes back with a really fun and clever sequel to those old-fashioned OSS-117...Whereas directors tend to "over-actualize" sequels of old classics (remember the avengers,urk), Hazanavicius chose to work on a really cheap hero, OSS-117, a kind of low-budget french 007, and decides to do it in a old-school way...The photography, the body attitudes, the fights choreography and the FX, everything is like an homage to the way films were made back in the 50s.And it works, as the tone and jokes of the movie are really good! Jean Dujardin embodies perfectly this stupid-arrogant-macho-selfish french spy, lost in a country he understands only in terms of folklore and inferiority.Yes, that's it, just the way the occident uses to consider its colonies back then (and, oh no, I won't say it has anything to do with what happens nowadays in the very same area...ah ah)...He just looks like an unfrozen Lino Ventura, with something like 40 pounds less, which is perfect for the role.The other members of the cast fit perfectly as well, with all you can dream of Russian spies, Egyptian independantists and former Nazis.And of course, the women, as there has to be "femmes fatales" in any good spy-movies... The plot is good (maybe not brilliant but really good enough...), taking place between actual historical facts, and remembering us in a funny way how France (and the others) treated its colonies back in those days. It all starts in 1955 with a British spy disappearing while tracking a Russian cargo full of weapons in Suez.Then France sends his best friend, agent OSS-117, to discover what happened to both the shipment and the agent... The fact is that this agent is really as dumb as can be, and he slips through the story without even understanding it, solving it in a very clouseau-esquire way. I have to say I had a bad feeling about the movie, as the publicity made around it was quite frightening, and as french humor tends to be quite populist and flat (forget about les bronzés 3 or camping...) but I was really surprised, and in the good way! I highly recommend it, whether you want a good parody of Bond-esquire movies (much more fun than in D.E.B.S. for example, but less skirts) or you're a fan of that genuine and candid way of filming they had back in the 5Os. Yes, that's it clever and (really!) funny, you've got the point once again Mr Hazanavicius!

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

this is a TV movie based on the murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich in the mid 1970's.based how much on truth it's hard to tell.this much is certain.it is based on the book written by Mark Fuhrman.anyway,the movie depicts the crime in flashbacks and its aftermath,including the arrest of a suspect,some 25 years after,who was never considered a suspect at the time.in the movie,Fuhram of course is largely responsible for the arrest and closure of the case for Martha's surviving family,in particular her mother.the narrative of the film is by the ghost of Martha Moxley,talking in the first person.this is a very effective device in this movie.to me,it adds more impact to the movie,and puts a human face on the murder victim(if only an actress playing the part)Maggie grace plays Martha,and i was really impressed with her.there is no way for certain to know Mark Fuhrman's motive in investigating the crime.it could have been out of a sense of justice and maybe he really cared.or maybe he just saw dollar signs from a future bestselling book.either way,it makes for an interesting movie.it's well acted and fairly fast paced.i don't think there was a lot of extra,unnecessary stuff in the movie,just what was needed to tell the story.one could argue that they left out things that would have shed a bit more light on the proceedings,and one would be right.also,one may argue that the ending was abrupt and again one would be right.but,as i said,for me,i think they told the story with at least most of the essentials.anything else would have likely required a miniseries.as an aside,there is a miniseries entitled "A Season in Purgatory" which came out 6 years ealier(1996)which this movie has some parallels to,even if only faint.however,if you like this movie,"Then you may be interested in "A Season in Purgatory". it is my belief that "a Season in Purgatory" is in fact a fictionalized account of the same crime.anyway,for me,Murder in Greenwich" is an 8/10
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I bought this movie because of Raquel Welch. She was gorgeous in this film as she played the role of Harry (Mike Wagner) girl friend. Harry a robber down on his luck trying to make one more heist. Harry goes to a funeral where he meets Vittorio De Sica and takes him for a ride. When things don't work out on the ride they put there mines together to figure out the fastest way to get money. Harry and his gang decide with the help of Vittorio De Sica to from there on mob. Rest a sure that no matter what the gang goes after that the outcome is never the same and will keep you on the edge of your sit. The rest of the out come you need to watch for yourself. As far as Raquel goes if you're a fan of here then you need to watch this movie because she never looked better standing on the beach with a ****** on. I give this movie 10 weasel stars on Raquel Welch body alone. It's no wonder why she was the hottest actress back in the sixties. She was the sex symbol everyone one wanted and no one could get. Not only does she look good, she can act even better. If you like, Raquel Welch then you'll like this movie
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.
Write a positive movie review.

Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a cult status
Determine the sentiment:

Fun, entertaining movie about WWII German spy (Julie Andrews!) falling in love with American pilot (Rock Hudson), while trying to get secrets from him. For some reason this was attacked by critics and shunned by the public in 1970--I can't see why. It's beautifully shot, has wonderful costumes and interiors, and exciting aerial dogfights. Also it has Andrews doing a strip-tease (strictly PG material) and singing a beautiful song--"Whistling in the Dark". The movie does have problems. Andrews and Hudson did not get along during the shooting of this--and it shows. Their love scenes lack spark and they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they turn in OK performances. The film is a little long (even in the 105 min director's cut I saw) and gets way too dark and serious at the end. Still, worth catching. Try seeing the directors cut...the other one runs half an hour longer!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I consider this film to be a complete masterpiece - actually I consider it to be Fernando Fragata's best work and undoubtedly the best of all Portuguese movies. I don't think you can come across such a "zero budget" kind of film as impressive and astonishing as this one.

The direction is done with perfection at an incredible fast pace and the music also composed by Fragata is mostly excellent. The story is creepy and humorous at the same time, and it is certainly an advanced study of the old saying "Misery loves company" kind of situations intertwined with a mind boggling mystery. A more than perfect recipe to glue the viewers' eyes to the screen from frame one to the last.

It's been called Neo-Hitchcock, and I'll agree. Much like the best Hitchcocks, it kept me guessing during the entire film and most of my suppositions were far for what ends up being smartly revealed.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A woman in love with her husband (he's suicidal) decides to have a baby to save his life. She's been to a fertility clinic - as has the lover she takes - so both know how artificial insemination works; but, instead of using the method thousands of people use every year around the world (the $5 turkey baster), they engage in coitus. We also are to believe that although the immigrant is in love with his fiancée, he doesn't suggest the obvious alternative to intercourse. Further, even though this is a business arrangement, the first time she's with her sperm donor, she takes off all her clothes, as if it's a seduction. Plus, her husband doesn't notice when $30,000 goes missing from their bank accounts. Does all this seem to demand more willing suspension of disbelief than even most Hollywood fare? Far fetched on all counts.
Like many, I first saw The Water Babies as a child/young teen in the late seventies/early eighties. It has remained with me since then with its catchy tunes, memorable portrayals, less-then-successful animation, and a story full of heart, coldness, and ultimately good vanquishing evil. Recently I sat down and saw it again after at least two decades passing, and I noticed THIS time around its striking similarities to The Wizard of Oz. No, these aren't blatant likenesses but hear me out. In this one we have a boy and his dog - having personal problems at "home," running away from something and in the scene right after they run away, changing the substance of their appearance. In This one, the boy and dog become animated. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and Toto are in color. In this one, the boy and dog are told they must find the Water Babies for answers and then ultimately the Kracken for guidance and he has the ability to let Tom go home if he shows he has courage, etc... In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy must also find an authoritative figure that tests her before he will allow her to return home. In the Water Babies, Tom meets three characters that will help him on his journey to the Water Babies - Dorothy has three helpers as well. When each helper is met, we are entertained with a rendering of "Hi, Hi, Hi, Hi, HI Cockallorum...We're on our way." In the Wizard it is "We're off to see the wizard." Dorothy has a good witch sort of look after her; Tom has a woman with many roles(Billie Whitelaw) do the same. If you look closely at the two, there are many other likenesses. That being said, The Water Babies is not a knockoff in any way, I was just commenting on the eerie likes between the two. This film has some solid performances from bad guys Bernard Cribbins and the always fascinating James Mason. The kids playing Tom and Ella are good. The supporting cast of Joan Greenwood(love her voice!), David Tomlinson, and the vocal talents of John Pertwee and Lance Percival add greatly to the mix. I must confess that the animation is less than sterling even for its time but is adequate enough to the challenge. The three animated characters that help Tom get home are all likable. I always have trouble picking my favorite between the French swordfish and the John Inman/Mr. Humphries like seahorse. The scene where we hear this guttural, maniacal laugh from a shipwrecked vessel only to see a seahorse with a huge polka-dotted bow-tie bob out always has me rolling! The Water Babies is a lot of fun. Sure, it is more of a children's film, but it has and always shall have a fond place in my heart. The bulk of the credit for what successes the film does have must go to director Lionel Jeffries. Jeffries is a wonderful comedic actor and his sense of humor is clearly evident throughout.

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

positive
This is one of Julie's greatest tributes to music, alongside her "Trapped in the Body of a White Girl" album. To quote the great Medusa "Dare to go bare, just wear your underwear, you'll get a ride home everytime" - Wow!!! Now that is some good advice. "You can dance, at my party! Yeah, justify your dance shoes!.....You're invited to the party in my pants. Yeah come on boy let's dance, at the party in my pants" Julie Brown is hilarious!!! It is almost sad that this video is only 51 minutes long, but every minute is awesome!!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

The timing of this film being released could not be better, particularly in light of all the turmoil in this world today. The film is a heartwarming, endearing and witty a piece. If you have siblings and still have parents alive, this will hit home well for the viewer. If you've lost your parents, then it will touch you deeply. The laughs come frequently, the ensemble cast works very well together and are believable. This film is intelligently written and the lines that come from each of the actors make the viewer laugh out loud frequently. There are moments that will bring tears to your eyes as well. I would recommend this film to anyone who respects the importantce of family and can follow an intelligent film.
As a sci-fi and casual Angelina Jolie fan, I thought this obviously low-budget movie might be worth a look... maybe it had a few scenes or a storyline that would make up for all its other faults. Plus, it might be interesting to watch Angelina as she was embarking on her star-bound career.

Oh how wrong I was. One thing I learned -- at 18, Angelina Jolie couldn't act. So, to make her comfortable, the producers cast this entire movie with people who couldn't act. Seeing this, Jack Palance (who can actually act) decided to overact. Watching 10 minutes of this happen is enough to burn your eyes out.

To the horrible acting and overacting add a nonsensical script, insipid dialog, bottom-of-the-barrel cinematography... in fact add bottom-of-the-barrel everything.

The story features Angelina as a cyborg programmed by her corporate overlords as an assassin. She escapes the corporate HQ with the help of her combat instructor. The corporation sends bounty hunters after them. Stupid stuff happens. The end. I would tell you more but I didn't want to waste my life watching this dreck.

I implore you -- this is not worth watching. Its not even worth thinking about watching. Save yourself the pain and move on.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Though Stephen Gyllenhaal is a good TV director with a few good full-length to his credit, "Homegrown" is just a mess in its script and direction. Despite performances from Billy Bob Thorton, John Lithgow, Kelly Lynch, Jon Bon Jovi, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Ted Danson, a cast this good couldn't save the film.

Gyllenhaalics will know that Jake and Maggie are in the film but you don't see Jake very well and Maggie's only in it for 30 seconds as babysitter tipping off Lithgow's character about a bust. It's not even a lowbrow pot comedy as the film was intended to be. It just wasn't funny.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.

Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.

Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!
Love the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Read This:

BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF THIS MOVIE.

Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.)

It makes me mad that people don't know this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named their hit record after this film.
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" falls into that Hitchcock middle ground that characterized many of his films during the 1950s: not a masterpiece of suspense by any means, but an awful lot of fun nonetheless.

James Stewart and Doris Day play a vacationing couple who get caught up in a plot heavy on foreign intrigue. The famous climactic scene takes place at a classical music concert, where someone is going to be assassinated during a particular cymbal clash in the score. The impish Hitchcock of course lets us know what that point is, so that the race to stop the assassin becomes a nail biting race against the cymbalist.

So much of this movie reminded me of the 1978 Chevy Chase/Goldie Hawn comedy "Foul Play" that I have to believe that film was inspired by this. Neither film is a big deal, but both are easy to enjoy.

Grade: B+
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie. 

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.

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

positive
Rita Hayworth lights up the screen in this fun, fancy and delightful musical starring Gene Kelly. Rita plays nightclub dancer Rusty Parker who has dreams to be a successful Broadway star. Unfortunately, her career is getting no where in Danny McGuire's Night Club. When one of her fellow dancers says she's going to enter a Cover Girl contest, she decides to follow her dreams and enters. She reminds the publisher of her Grandma, who he was deeply in love with many years ago. But when she finds this success, her boyfriend is not happy about it.

I had never seen Rita before this, and I am so glad I did! She has such a scene presence and is a very good actress. There are some good numbers in here, not the best of any musical but they are melodic and good to listen to. One thing I didn't like was Gene Kelly's character. He should have supported his girlfriend! But anyway, that's perhaps the only criticism I have about this movie. Cover Girl is a glorious, fluffy film - perfect escapism. Not everyone's ideal movie, but a wonderful movie nonetheless, due to Rita Hayworth's star power. Great movie, truly impressed.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).

I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.
Write a negative movie review.

This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like "Uh..is that it?" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like "Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!"
I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work,  for the bigger part low-budged flicks  and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation. 

And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption. 

Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff  but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it

I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno  effort or something like that
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...

Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10.
What's an example of a movie review?

Genius or utter madness? That depends on your interpretation of this film. I responded to it on the level of a self-aware "cop-movie parody", and I sincerely hope that was the intention as I don't see anyone taking it seriously! :-D Paul Rudd for one seems to be chewing up the scenery and really getting into the spirit of things! Is this film supposed to mark a departure for Rudd from his core background in the comedy genre? Some kind of insane attempt to reinvent him as a hard-boiled action star? I think not! 

With the cheesy, almost awkward acting, low budget FX, and zany over-the-top action set pieces, it all kinda evoked that old TV show "Sledge Hammer" for me! HILARIOUS!!! :-)

Of course, I may have totally interpreted the film wrong. If it was in fact an attempt at a 'straight' action movie, then it was certainly an amusing failure!!

Watch with lots of alcohol and some mates!!! ;-)
What's an example of a movie review?

Batman Returns is to be considered quality when one speaks of superhero films. Its predecessor, Batman, in my opinion, is by far the greatest and most well thought out of the comic book genre. For one to say that Batman Returns was disappointing, he or she has not fully watched the movie and considered the acting of Danny Devito as the Penguin. Devito and Walken offer some memorable moments. The tale of Batman is suppose to be dark and Tim Burton has fulfilled how the comic portrays Batman. Batman Returns provides comic relief, action, suspense and fantasy; and it should not be viewed as 'crap', although we are all entitled to our own opinions.
What's an example of a movie review?

Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.

It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.

Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.

The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:



This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.

But otherwise, okay!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: At the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that "Sarkar" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz. 

Amitabh Bachchan plays "Sarkar", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather. 

As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction. 

However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed. 

All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

One of the last surviving horror screen greats - Conrad Radzoff - dies and has his body placed in a mausoleum with televised-before-death snippets of the great Conrad greeting you as you visit. Unfortunately for him and his captors, Conrad's body is "borrowed" by a gang of four boys and three girls and taken to a huge manor where they drink with him, toast him, dance with him, laugh with and at him, and then put him to bed in a casket which just happens to by lying in a room upstairs. News of the missing body reaches Radzoff's widow and her friend(who happens to be proficient in the black arts) and she holds some kind of ceremony that brings Conrad back to life so he can, in his own words, get "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Well, Frightmare is an interesting "bad" film. Sure, it is cheap. The sets look like they were borrowed(which I am sure they were). The special effects and blood and guts are done liberally and with little credibility. The acting is average to below average with a few exceptions. Jeffrey Combs of Re-Animator fame is in tow, but really he does little in this rather thankless role as a horror obsessed teen that needs to steal a dead man's body for kicks. None of the "kids" except the pretty girl playing Meg is any good. Nita Talbot plays the "friend" of the Radzoffs with withering interest. Also, look for the big - I mean big - guy that plays the policeman. That is Porky himself of Porkys fame. But thankfully for all of us, one performance does rise above the material. Ferdy Mayne, an oft overlooked actor from Germany who had Christopher Lee features and did star as a vampire in The Fearless Vampire Killers, does a more than commendable job as the aging horror icon in public life and a real demon of a man in private life. Conrad Radzoff in a bad human being in life, living solely for his own pleasures and we see him kill twice before he is even dead(obviously none of the swinging teens at that point). Mayne is able to look very regal, speak very elegantly, and convey menace with ease. If for no other reason, one should see Frightmare for his performance. I do; however, believe that when they showed black and white clips of Radzoff that they used Christopher Lee footage(anyone have any thoughts?). Anyway, one can guess what happens and it does indeed: Radzoff goes out and goes after the kids that disturbed his peace. Again, the formula is trite and overused. The acting for the most part is anemic, and the direction oh so ridiculous. But Mayne gives a good performance in a sea of ineptitude. Definitely worth a little peek. Watching Mayne keep popping up on screens in his mausoleum brought a wry smile to my lips each time.
This is certainly a quality movie with a classy cast. As far as movies about Carlos the Jackal go, this one beats Bruce Willis' feeble efforts in 'The Jackal' to a bloody pulp, then spits on them. I am a bit surprised that this movie hasn't attracted more votes, something of a 'sleeper' obviously. A pity because this film is definitely worth a watch. It is clever and never dull. See it, 7/10

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

positive
Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?

DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say "It's only a movie, it's only a movie", it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish.

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

positive
I didn't really get this movie because I'm not some perv like you, who is into lesbian stuff.

The girl in the red wig tries too hard to be funny (her lips are SO silicone!), but she's really lame and insecure. She tries to come off like a surfer-guy (better than dressing slutty, but still weird and definitely unfashionable); the movie doesn't explain why she's trying to pass herself off as a man. Oh, right, to "get" the poor, dumb girl. I forgot. She makes all these dumb inventions which are not funny, and she's a really lousy actress. Plus, that waif look is so OUT!

This dumb blond girl from Melrose Place plays(surprise) a dumb blond.

She thinks the girl in the wig is a guy! They even make out! Ewww! I guess that part was sort of funny.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Hopper has never been worse as if he felt as this movie is worthy of only a grade B performance and he delivers a rather good one. Outside of Madsen and Hopper the acting is horrid; you've seen better at your local high school. The sound and at times the editing and camera shots are low end of B-movies. The scene with the peeping tom is of movies greatest gratuitous nudity scenes I've ever seen (it doesn't even come close to fitting in the movie). The script was probably a great 10-page outline, but when it comes out to a full-length movie there are more holes in it then the dead bodies Madsen left behind. I do have to say Hopper dressed in a nice suit driving the Hummer had me laughing out loud, but I don't think that was the intent. Yes there is a little style, and Hopper can always draw my interest. However the interesting plot concept never pays off and you are left wondering why you wasted your time watching this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative