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

Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..
The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary "De-Lovely" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for "Philadelphia" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more "Forrest Gump" than "Philadelphia". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.

The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.

Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final "wedding scene" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.

The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.

On the whole, a hoot!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

***SPOILERS*** A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.

Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.

Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal. 

Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of "Sorceress" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.

It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of "Sorceress" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about the film.
What's an example of a movie review?

I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.
Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.

Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.

So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest: 

1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.

2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.

3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.

4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.

5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.

6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.

7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.

8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.

As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.

Not recommended. Not recommended at all!

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

negative
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.

The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.

My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.

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

negative
A few yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).

I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.

Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...

I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop! 

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful: 

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!") 

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Walt Disney's 20th animated feature was the last one to be greenlighted by the great man himself (he died in late 1966) and is not generally considered to be among their very best output. The main problem is that, on the surface, the film seems merely to be the feline version of either LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) or 101 DALMATIONS (1961) both of which are certainly more beloved by fans Even so, being both an animation and cat lover, I dug this reasonably bouncy concoction in which a pampered female cat (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her three little kittens are thrown out onto the streets of Paris by a wealthy lady (Hermione Baddeley)'s greedy butler. Luckily, they meet a streetwise alley cat (Phil Harris) who guides them on the journey back and are further aided along the way by a feline jazz band (led by Scatman Crothers) and two helpful and amiably dopey dogs; meanwhile at home, Edgar the butler celebrates his supposed inheritance and the mouse and the horse do their bit to help their fellow feline pets. Legendary entertainer Maurice Chevalier was whisked back from retirement to sing the title song (which includes a verse in French) and Scatman's band indulge in a breezy number "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about.

Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life.

Through all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2 particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know how long.

In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true heartbreak.

What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single breathtaking second.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

For the 1980s, this is a very dark movie. At this point, filmmakers were beginning to operate under the assumption that all films require smarmy comic relief (which, of course, is taken to the extreme today), flashy action scenes (even more overdone today), or steamy sex scenes.

Hutton and Penn are stupendous in their roles as childhood friends turned Soviet spies. Penn in particular is brilliant as hapless drug dealer Daulton Lee.

What you have here is a true thriller/drama. There is no eye candy to speak of, but the story is so compelling and the acting so superb that (hopefully) most people wouldn't miss it. There are a couple amusing scenes, in particular the one where Penn tries to get his Soviet benefactors involved in a major drugrunning deal.

Well worth watching.
I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'm out of words to describe the beauty of "The Cranes are Flying", but I'll try anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika) separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison with the emotion.

There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a emotional/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a better future.

Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique. 

Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or small) the film and its message will remain relevant.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film, released in 1951, has the usual elements typical of the westerns released during the 50's; the cavalry needing to protect the territory from a murderous band of Indians, an officer determined to see that task through, and the men with him with various character flaws that he has to merge together into a cohesive unit. This small band must hold on to a fort located close to the Indian village until reinforcements arrive. The Indians know, all to well, that the small band is undermanned, and could be wiped out before the help comes. One major difference for this film, "Only the Valiant", is that it attempts to play out the usual storyline, but at the same time, deliver the message that duty is a paramount concern to be shared by all, even if they don't accept that charge.

Gregory Peck embodies the tight-lipped captain of the troop that has to prevent the Indians from breaking out into the territory. The troopers that he takes with him to the small outpost are the dregs of the troop at the fort; they, in turn, have gripes or weaknesses that cause them to wonder if the captain hasn't taken them out because of their general lack of devotion to a cause. Eventually, the captain and the small band confront the hostiles, and at the same time, each confronts his own flaw. The cast includes western stalwarts such as Ward Bond, Gig Young, Neville Brand, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Warner Anderson. 

A sleeper of a film, and a good solid western for fans of this genre.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The impossibly sexy Rosie Holotik plays Charlotte Beale, a new nurse at one of those movie-type asylums where the doctor in charge has his own, unorthodox ways of treating the inmates. Reluctantly bringing her on board is the officious Dr. Masters (Anne MacAdams, a.k.a. Annabelle Weenick). The inmates don't take too kindly to Charlotte, either.

Part mystery, part horror, this initial effort from B-movie director S.F. Brownrigg has an oppressive feel to it. These colorful psychos, including a nymphomaniac with no self-esteem, a gentle giant who's already had a lobotomy, and a supposed "judge" who speaks in legalese jargon, dominate the screen with their unnerving presence.

It's a picture that works fairly well, establishing the gritty, grim atmosphere right from the get go. Some brief bursts of graphic violence also help to give it that good old fashioned exploitative quality.

It builds in intensity as the imperiled heroine struggles to maintain her own sanity, offering one surreal encounter after another. Particularly effective is the poetry-quoting, dotty old Mrs. Callingham.

For cheap 1970's era cheese, it's pretty effective, with a particularly nasty climax. I had a pretty good time watching it.

7/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A magazine columnist who writes about life on her farm house when in fact she lives in a NY apartment must come up with a plan when she learns that her publisher and a war hero will spend Christmas with her. After a slow start, it turns into an entertaining little screwball comedy, thanks to a fine cast. In a big departure from her previous role as a femme fatale in "Double Indemnity," Stanwyck displays a nice comedic flair. Morgan is smooth as the affable war hero while Greenstreet is well cast as the publisher. However, Sakall steals the film as a chef trying to master the English language while speaking with an almost incomprehensible European accent.
Write a negative movie review.

Beloved tale of hero "Benji" ("Higgins" the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day "Benji" grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging café owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.

Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only "Benji" can save the day.

Plot is routine from writer/producer/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to "Benji".

Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for "Benji's" theme, "I Feel Love".

Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video
This movie is bad.

This movie is REALLY bad.

This movie is might as well be half a minute long and shown 200 times in a row, because you'd get the same effect.

The phone rings. Man A answers the phone and gets annoyed by Man B. Man A curses off Man B, and then hangs up the phone. Repeat.

This is the entire movie.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. TRUST ME.

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

negative
First of all,there is a detective story:"légitime défense" by Belgian Stanislas André Steeman whose "l'assassin habite au 21" Clouzot had already transferred to the screen in 1942,with Pierre Fresnay and the same actress Suzy Delair.Steeman complained about Clouzot's adaptation for both movies.The movie from 1942 was excellent,but the "detective story" side had been kept,so why complaining?As for "Quai des orfèvres",Clouzot was now in a new phase of his brilliant career.After having directed "le corbeau" and been blacklisted,he had a lot more to say than a simple whodunit.Steeman complained essentially about the poor detective ending,which I will not reveal of course,but Clouzot focused on the social vignettes,on his characters's psychology,and he did not give a damn about the puzzle à la Agatha Christie.By doing so,he becomes the genuine predecessor of CLaude Chabrol who has always been closer to him than to Alfred Hitchcock whom he admires much though. Suzy Delair has great screen presence,and you will love the song she really sings(she was a singer too)"avec son tralala".Bernard Blier gives ,as ever,a sparing of gestures and words performance,and he really pulls it off .Two characters are particularly interesting and disturbing:the first one,Dora,the photographer:she takes pictures of female models ,and Clouzot,by subtle touches,reveals us she's a lesbian.Of course,the word is never uttered(How could it be in 1947?) The police chief (fabulous Louis Jouvet) tells her:"You and me,WE are not lucky with women."The portrait of this cop is very detailed:we learn a lot of things about him,not necessary connected with the Delair/Blier plot:he's a widower ,with a son he adores and who runs into school difficulties,particularly in geometry.So we get to know all the characters in depth.One of the most important manifesto of post-war French cinema.

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

positive
'Fame' (1980) is brilliant. It's got all these qualities that made the late 70's movies so great. It is proud of its directness and not ashamed of being over the top.

What really matters here, is the journey, not the destination. Ignorant idiots with soap opera mentality, will never realize that 'Fame' is about the struggles, anxieties and triumphs of these young people, not about their careers.

Ironically enough, none of the very talented actors of 'Fame' made it in Hollywood. 'Fame' marked the end of an era. The end of artistic freedom and experimentation and the beginning of commercialization and political correctness. It's the last statement of a generation that had a voice of its own.

10/10

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.
This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for "The Proud Family" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.

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

negative
A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected by the legend of an ancient demon called the "kagutaba."

From the looks of it, the film looks like one of those camcorder movies that have been popular these last few months, even one that's going to be released next week (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY)! However, unlike movies like CLOVERFIELD, REC, and BLAIR WITCH, where most of those movies are in complete chaos and mayhem with all of the shakiness, this one is basically shown in a traditional documentary style. It has TV excerpts and interviews and the scares are very subtle, well, excluding the last 20 minutes where we go into the chaos effect and where the fear factor is raised up tremendously.

And it works. The film is very engrossing and it makes you think. Yes, you heard me right: It makes you think. You have to pay attention to those unrelated details given throughout the film and the payoff is great when, in course of the film, these things start to intertwine one another. The film is also very slow moving, which, in this case, is a good thing. We, as the audience, get to absorb the details shown on screen, however subtle or blatant they are.

Above all, it's a frightening little film. I'm a person who is scared of ghosts and the paranormal more than killers who slashes away teenage victims so yes, the film gave me some nightmares. There are some images in here that are really disturbing to watch, including one closer in the end where it makes you go "What am I looking at?!" Well, it's better left unanswered. There are around ten reoccurring characters in here, all of which gave authentic performances in their roles.

The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending because most questions are left unanswered. The question "That's it?" went though my mind. It left a bad taste in my mouth. However, the rest of the film is just engrossing and really frightening. Don't see this alone in the dark because you'll regret that choice. Also, I can see in a couple of years that Hollywood would remake this film. That will be interesting.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible. 

Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today.
Determine the sentiment:

Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.

Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his "spiritual wheelchair". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran "ER" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.

The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as "Girl, Interrupted" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in "The Truman Show". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was "Heather Graham - nice baps". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.

In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as "Die Another Day" and "Gothika" in my book and that simply ain't right. "Committed" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had "zombie" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the "museum of the dead", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.

ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their "zombies". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10!

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

negative
This video was my first introduction to the Residents, and I couldn't stop playing it for the past three days. The visuals are dynamite and more inventive and technically complex than any I have ever seen on the big screen or small.

The DVD loses points, however, for the pointless addition of new music. The original Residents music is unlike anything else you've ever heard, and will really tweak your brain in the best possible way. The new music however is uniformly uninteresting and in most cases is rather bad in comparison to some of the classic tracks. Also, the uncompleted Vileness Fats video feels VERY incomplete, and I could only fathom the plot of the story from extensive reading of the notes on the disc.

Speaking of notes on the disc, this DVD features lots of cool easter eggs that will probably appeal to long-time fans of the Residents. Hint: look for icons on the notes pages that shouldn't be there.

From a technical standpoint, the disc is one of the best DVD transfers available. There is virtually no observable pixelization, and only a little edginess in strong contrast points.

Kudos for a top notch presentation. This disc really deserves your attention.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.

Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.

I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.

For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.

0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.

-AP3-
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.

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

negative
I would say that this film is disturbing. The brutality is depicted in a very sick way, it's like a psychosis in 40 minutes. In the same time, it is a cruel introspection in human behavior. The scenes are ferocious, starting with the butchery of the horse and ending with the brutal sex scene in the kitchen. Every emotion is exploited to extreme, the frustration of the butcher, the love for his daughter almost incestuous, the rage when he finds out she has been abused, every feeling is so natural and so wrong. This film delivers the truth about human nature in a very honest and brutal way. The message of the film is that one's life can change in a second as a consequence of one's behavior and that the most primitive emotions are the most powerful and can determine one's acting. I'd loved the unique manner of filming, the simplicity and the brutality accompanied with the silence in which only inner thoughts pierce through.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)
There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I recalled watching this program as a young boy in Australia in the 60s, and enjoyed it on DVD again as a 50-year-old father of young kids. Although the bad guys are mostly shallow characters and there is a component of violence, I am very happy to have my 6- and 8-year old kids watch this because the central characters are deep, kind and honourable, the Japanese culture shines through, the violence is not gory, nobody glories in it, and the program is beautiful to watch. It does not promote nightmares, but instead it shows much of the culture that must have primarily influenced the design of Jedi knights in Star Wars. 

The quality of the DVDs does leave something to be desired. Video perfectionists will not like this one. It is strongly reminiscent of something held on 16mm film and projected onto the wall in some basement... which it may well be. The soundtrack is also lacking in the quality we have come to expect from home theatre. However, my kids noticed only that it was not in colour, and I suspect they only noticed that because we had been talking recently about how old things are often like that. The beauty of Mt Fuji is evident even in B&W. Something about the 17th-century setting makes the quality part of the atmosphere, as if you peer into the past through some time window.

Overall this program is better than most things on the air, and a far better advertisement for Japanese TV than Pokemon, but you may consider it of marginal value if you did not have the experience of seeing it back in the 60s. My score of 8/10 takes its age into account.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Finally a gangster Movie worth watching!

Jennifer Tily should get nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal!

This Movie flies like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem!

Jennifer Tily is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie.

I was shocked to find Faye Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles. 

A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul of this film.

The story is original deep and poetic.

This Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests.

The gang of Spanish Fire just set everything on screen alight.

Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and a Movie Star.

Sit back and enjoy the ride.
This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.

This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.

The IMDb reviewer states: "Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail." You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.

Finally, I felt that Schotté's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful "Chauncy Gardner." He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that "Being There" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted in life.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

About the movie itself, there are ample comments. 

I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut "gore-shots" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: "WE have to attack THEM" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.

When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.

I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.

I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10

Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative