cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after "Next Friday").

It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, "Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this." Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say "Cool!" as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. "The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power". What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1/2 hours.

But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.

I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.

[0/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0/4]
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

While watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: "I ate a rabbit." "I TOLD you she was possessed!" "Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!"

There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.

The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.

I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some "arty" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time out.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I'd give this film a 1/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current "skin trend" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than "adult" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.

On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: "Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible "substance" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead"
Thought provoking, humbling depiction of the human tragedies of war. A small, but altruistic view of one family's interactions with the enemy during the civil war in Kentucky. This movie lessens the "glamor" of war; showing it's effect on not only the soldier but the entire family unit.

A lot of today's movies show war as an opportunity to highlight the "hero's" and other glamorous features of war, but very little attempts to show the true effect war actually takes on a community. This movie attempts this through a retelling of a person's memory of those days. This movie is stated to be loose translation of an actual events, when in reality, this movie is probably a factual reality of hundreds, perhaps thousands of "actual events" during the civil war. I highly recommend those interested in our civil war to watch this movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A proof that it's not necessary for a movie to have a deep many-layered story and other sophisticated elements to be a good movie. Even if the story could be expanded in many directions, especially in more sociological way (people lust for money) it seems that it's perfect just the way it is. Through many sudden changes it takes the spectator to the end without any unnecessary complications and without letting the spectator taking the eyes of the screen. 

But the acting for me isn't so good. With the exception of Lindsey McKeon the others were average or even worst. In some scenes they just empty-stared in front of themselves. For exception of Lindsey which was more convincing. It's a really simple movie for just laying back and enjoying. 

7/10
Determine the sentiment:

This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.

Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Having previously seen this short on VHS tape with the feature Summer Stock, I just rewatched Every Sunday on the TCM site. It marked the film debut of 15-year-old Deanna Durbin and of 14-year-old Judy Garland outside of her two older sisters. These two teens showcase their musical talents with a solo from Deanna of "Il Bacio", then one from Judy of "Waltz with a Swing" before the two climax with "Americana". The slight plot of this 11-minute film concerns the possible unemployment of Edna's (Durbin's real first name which is the way she's addressed here) grandfather's conducting job at the park because of low attendance. With the two girls' help, you can probably guess what happens from there! Contrasts are marked not only with Garland's and Durbin's musical choice but also with their height, poise, and movement. Despite all that, they perform quite well at the end and it's almost surprising that M-G-M chose Garland while Durbin was already contracted at Universal as this short was made but was briefly allowed back in since her feature debut (Three Smart Girls) was in the early preparing stages. Judy herself would make her first feature (Pigskin Parade) at 20th Century-Fox as M-G-M was deciding what movie she would next star in. That would be Broadway Melody of 1938 where she would perform the show stopping number, "Dear Mr. Gable (You Made Me Love You)". But back to this short, Every Sunday provides a warm and wonderful glimpse of two star singers at the beginning of their legendary careers unaware of what the future holds for them...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and "the boys" in that school. It was an English "public" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for "his lads", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a "dance hall girl"(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to "dance hall" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely "lower class". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she "leavens" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the "British Invasion"...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like "Chips"...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.

The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.

The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.

The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.

The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.

Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.

9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...

It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.

Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...

Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!

Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

When It Comes to ANY Movie that was made in or about the South,The Characters are Labeled Racist or Hillbillies or Even Worse That Awful RACIST TERM "Rednecks". This Movie Was a Murder Mystery, Plain & Simple. It was a Great Murder Mystery & Did Demonstrate Some Of Human Feelings About Each Others Race. The Same Type of Observations Made By Black Character Actors Toward Whits in Todays' Movies. Before Watching This Movie, One Should Get the "MISSISSIPPI BURNING" Chip off of Ones' Shoulder & Enjoy the Plot, Wonderful Acting, & Reminiscent Scenes of Simpler Times That While are Gone, They Will Not be Forgotten. Mr.Faulkner Did His Hometown of OXFORD,Miss. Justice by Having this Movie Shot There. The Producer Noted While Shooting the Movie There, His Stereotypical Perception of Whites were Misconcieved & That He Observed WHite & Black Townspeople & Locals Getting Along With Each Other in the Same Way. So, Sit Back & Enjoy one of Mr Faulkner's Great Classics & Try to Figure out Who The Killer Really Is...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...
Determine the sentiment:

I can't understand why many seem to hate this.

This movie ties together many of the overlapping settings of the historical and Biblical epics of the fifties, using set pieces, props, and costumes similar to those seen in other movies. Here, however, the story attempts to run through all of human history, with a frame story about the human race being on trial, with a guilty verdict meaning h-bombs will go off all over the world. The prosecutor is the devil, played with fiendish glee by Vincent Price. OK, so it's a little hokey calling the defender "The Spirit of All Men," but I think that's one of the things that gives this movie a sense of period charm. The Spririt of Man is incidentally played quite well by Ronald Coleman, in his last film. It is also the last movie in which Groucho, Harpo, and Chico Marx all appear, but not together. Groucho plays Peiter Minuet buying Manhattan from the Indians, in a scene played purely for campy humor. Chico isn't funny at all as a monk who thinks the world is flat, and Harpo, we are told, is meant to be Isaac Newton, discovering gravity. Most of the other performances are well done, though.

Other hokey things are that the trial is supposedly taking place in outer space, which is depicted as a region of clouds and blueness. There is something called "The Great Clock of Outer Space," which, when striking midnight, may signal the end of the world.

But at its heart, the movie addresses the problems of WMDs and the eternal question of whether Man is basically good, or basically evil; and poses it in what I think is an interesting way. Also, anyone who likes the look of costume epics of the fifties should like the look of this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.

First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.

Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).

So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I was a schoolboy when I watched this film for the first time. The next day I knew that all pupils of our form watched it and all were fascinated by the film as I was. I think the same situation was in all forms of our school and in the whole Soviet Union. Later I watched it every time it was shown on TV and want to watch more. I think that comparison with "Back to the Future" or other Sci-Fi films is not appropriate. "Gost'ya iz budushchego" is unique in many ways, once you have watched it, you never forget it.

This film is full of belief in peaceful science achievements, full of belief in the beautiful future of our world. It's not only the film, but also a forecast of many scientific inventions and achievements. The time shown in the film is the year 1984 (the year of its creation) and the year 2084 (where a schoolboy Kolya Gerasimov has traveled for some time and where his friend Alisa Seleznyova was from). The year now is 2005, many inventions and achievements predicted in the film are not realized yet. Such as "Mielophone" (a device, which can read thoughts of any animal and human), expeditions to Venus and Mars (as easy as going for a picnic in the weekend), creating and launching of the satellites as a homework for pupils, easy to drive flying machines (which completely replaced automobiles), biorobots, "historical identification" of any kind of material or creature performed in a couple of minutes, and many others. Meanwhile, some of them nowadays became much more realistic than they seemed in 1984! Just wait for 2084 :-)

The film also depicts typical Russian schoolboys and schoolgirls (and does it so naturally!). With their inventiveness, curiosity, humour, dreaminess. Look for example at Fima Korolyov, you could find such character in nearly all forms of every school of the Soviet Union, similar character was in my form too! Alisa Seleznyova... I myself, as well as many my classmates fell in love at first sight with her! By the way, later an actress who played Alisa became a scientist - I think she was as much influenced by the film as people who watched it on TV.

Beautiful idea, beautiful realization, beautiful actors, beautiful music, beautiful song "Prekrasnoye Daleko" ("The Wonderful Far-Away")... Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...

The last thing I want to say is that different remakes and "new versions" of the song from the film and even the film itself were made later and spread on TV and in the Internet. All they are not even comparable with the original. I should not even comment them, my comment is only about the original. So, request the original and enjoy it!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Not "confusing" in the sense that, "Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!" But confusing in the sense that, "Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!"

DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.

The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.

Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I only voted it 2/10 mainly because Hitchcock agreed to direct it.He certainly had an off-day with predictable plot lines, stupid childish characters who are desperately trying to be funny.There were "twee" hygenic, sanitised, emasculated "sex" scenes at a time when the Hollywood Production code was in full force.Lazy male characters in the film who like "soap" characters never do a stroke of work for which they are paid.It always irritates me when food is usually never eaten by actors (one exception was in the eating scene in "Tom Jones" (1963); although copious amounts of drink are consumed - actors have to leave their mouths free for the next line! Carole Lombard certainly fitted Hitchcock's "cool blond" idealised image of a heroine, but what ever possessed him to direct this worthless unfunny script, he should have stuck to his thrillers.It certainly has not worn well over the last 69 years.I couldn't wait for it to end as it gradually irritated me no end.
He did one at Christmas to try and bring back a number one song, and now the terrific Justin Lee Collins wanted to reunite the cast members and maybe some crew of one of his favourite TV shows as a kid, The A-Team. The only member he wouldn't be able to get was the late great George Peppard who played main character Col. John "Hannibal" Smith, but he did get some kind of psychic to try and help. He did manage to reunite all members including Dirk Benedict (Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck #2) who went to Celebrity Big Brother in 2007, Dwight Schultz (Capt. H.M. "Howling Mad" Murdock), Melinda Culea (Amy Amanda Allen), William Lucking (Col. Lynch) and Lance LeGault (Col. Roderick Decker, the only member of the team to die). He did talk to Mr. T (Sgt. Bosco "B.A." Baracus) in an anticipated interview, but he was unavailable to turn up at the reunion. It was really fun watching him trying to find them, and talking to them, even though they probably didn't want to, and the reunion of course is the great climax. Very good!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.

Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.

And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals. 

The idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era) was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good movie with a real social message.

I have ever since been looking for this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.

I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.

But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.

It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.

By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.

I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.

There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.

Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.

Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot!
OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do it.

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

negative
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.

Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this movie in its brief run in "art house" cinema in '69. I found it so funny that I literally spent part of the movie on the floor, having laughed so hard I fell out of my seat. In retrospect, years later, I thought it had been done by Melvin Van Peebles. When I mentioned it to a friend, he said that a friend of his, Downey Sr., filled virtually every non-acting role in the flick: Director, writer producer, etc. He was right of course, and my memory was wrong, except that this WAS one of the funnies movies ever made. The part of "the Arab" was particularly priceless.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!". 

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation.... 

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star. 

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?
What's an example of a movie review?

Wow, "The Curse of Michael Myers" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules! 

I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.

10 out of 10.
First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever!

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

positive
Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill. 

A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot. 

The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts. 

It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.

The plot also has some very surprising shifts. 

Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Be very afraid of anyone who likes this film. They probably inhaled too many paint chips as a child. Its so awful I refuse to relive a plot. O yeah, there wasn't one! This movie is a true definition of what Hollywood creates for people who don't want to think at a theatre. Do the bad guys win? Do the good guys win? Who cares!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with "Wings of Desire," "Northfork" tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since "Repo Man." The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is the classic western. The good, Glenn Ford, the dashing hero, the ex-soldier, the man who would not hold a gun again. He eventually has to stand up the the evil land baron, Edward G. Robinson, who owns most of the valley and wants it all. Then,there's Barbara Stanwyck, the real ruler of the roost. Edward G. Robinson's wife, who will allow no one to get in her way, even making Edward G. Robinson look weak. She is so evil that everyone else pales next to her blind ambition and ruthlessness to rule the valley and everyone in it. The gleam in her eye as she sees people face death for her is unnerving. It is worth waiting for.Throw in a young Brian Keith and a few others and you have a drama that stands on its own. With the requisite stampedes, shoot-outs, ambushes and close-ups of hard riding cowboys and you have a heck of a western.Without giving anything away, there are enough twists and turns within to make this not just a standard cowboy shoot-em-up.
Write a positive movie review.

Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.

Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.

Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.

Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.

Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.

See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.
The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.

No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.

They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Set just before the Second World War, this is a touching and understated romantic story that is loosely based on a real event.

It concerns a German rocket scientist Gerhart Zucher (Ulrich Thomsen) working in Britain in the advent of the Second World War. Fearing Hitler may recall him to Germany to assist him preparing for war, Zucher and his slippery assistant Heinz (Eddie Marsan) are evacuated by the British authorities to a remote Scottish island. They are given the task of building a rocket post box that will enable the islanders to communicate with the mainland.

Mocked and bullied by the islanders, they set up home with local girl Catherine Mackay (the stunning Shauna MacDonald), with whom Thomsen begins an affair but complications arise when Germany comes calling...

The central romance between Zucher and Catherine is subtle and sincerely played and the supporting cast is a colourful bunch with an array of respected Scottish character actors including Gary Lewis and Clive Russell.

Fine cinematography and a brilliant central theme song sung in the local dialect round out this movie.

Intelligent but undemanding, it is good for a quiet evening in.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Everyone knows the so-called plot, so let me cut to the chase.

Forced frivolity. Miscast performers working hard to have fun so you can have fun. The brilliant Meryl Streep gives it a great try. Pierce Brosnan just plain embarrassing. Inexplicably set on a Greek Island. Lots of squealing, shrieking women. Lots.

It was a silly juke box musical on stage, now it's a big, splashy, poorly shot screen juke box musical. If you like ABBA, so-so. If not, an assault on the senses and an insult to whatever intelligence you're left with when you exit the theater. I readily admit that I didn't really want to see this movie and went with some friends who did, but for the love of God. Why does my gender shriek and squeal to convey delight? Ever sit next to a table of women who have had too much to drink and are absolutely determined to have GREAT night out on the town? That's the feeling of this whole project. It just felt so good when it stopped.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.

It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.

This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off.
As Jennifer Denuccio used to say on Square Pegs, "Gag me out the door." I would definitely vote this movie on IMDB's Worst movie list.

Dennis Christopher plays T.T., a guy from Chicago who goes to California peddling his brother's jazz records. He is supposed to be a barney placed in the locals-only surfing community. But he acts more like he is new to civilization (just try to get through his sex scene without squirming). There are also the on-going adventures of the rest of the local population that the viewer must endure. That of Duke (Seymour Cassell), the volleyball expert who tries to get T.T. to act like a normal human being, the obnoxious drunk surfers who cheat on their girlfriends, and the guy who makes a bet with another that he can live in car for sixth months.

California Dreaming is just a big old mess. It starts out like a typical seventies romp, complete with bad 70s music (even though this movie came out one year shy of the 80s). And Dennis Christopher comes off as the most irritable loser, it makes the movie hard to watch (keep your finger on the fast forward button). Even if this movie was supposed to be about the surfer culture, the surf scenes are almost total garbage. The people at the surf contest look as though they can't keep from falling asleep.

I guess the only cool thing is seeing Tanya Roberts outside of her role as Midge on the sitcom "That's 70s show." And Cassell wasn't bad, he was just in a bad movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie in September with my mother. I was expecting a good movie, and I saw an excellent one. This is now my most treasured movie. It did not leave me after I left the theater. The situations in this movie reminded me of my late grandmother. Meryl Streep and Renee Zellweger were equally incredible. This movie has made me realize how important family relationships are. Rent it. I can't recommend it enough.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive