cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Where do I start? The box should have been enough to keep me away from this attempt, but I'd been taught early on not to judge a book (or movie) by its cover, so I ignored the disgusting graphic quality of the box and rented it anyway. But common sense should tell you that if they can't do a single still image properly, then how dismal will the moving ones be, later? Yeah. They were pretty awful.

The actors in this flick appeared totally unaware they were being filmed, as just any expression seemed to do fine, regardless of the situation the characters were in or what they were reacting to.

However, a good story can offset the downfalls of low budget productions. Good dialog can carry a poorly-funded attempt at times. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times, as the story was as weak and nonexistent as the other required elements of good cinema.

There simply aren't words for how bad this was. 

Perhaps you can get the idea from my rating of -2.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The production value of AvP2 can be described by one adjective: AWFUL

The script is ridiculous, even in the fictional area of AvP: What are the facehuggers good for on the Predator's ship? Why is the Predator cleaning up all signs of his influence and than wasting precious time with eviscerating and even presenting the body of an insignificant human cop? Why is the Predator alone? Why is the Predator equipping himself only on earth but on his home planet? Why does the Predator make his job so uneasy for himself by hunting down the Aliens rather than bombing the whole countryside like the humans do in the end? Why is the Predator dropping more & more of his few weapons rather than collecting them to keep them together after using one. In the end he is even dropping his armor before fighting the Predalien in hand to hand combat: what a bad plagiarism of the first predators final fight between Arny and the Predator. The Predator's gestures are so exaggerated that he is moving more like a Japanese sumo than like highly skilled extraterrestrial-safari-hunter. As one can see immediately the whole story is a mess. But it gets even worse because this botched-up job is filled up with boring patchwork of senseless interludes like a lengthy pizza ordering episode or some detailed information about the criminal past of the two brothers (Dallas & Ricky). The Sheriff is of course the friend of these two criminals who he puts regularly behind bars. (not convincing & absolutely superfluous for the plot).

In addition to that the cast of actors is horrible. Compared to the high class of directors & actors of the former Aliens or Predator movies AvP2 is an embarrassingly bad piece of crap.

At last the action of the movie is really poor. There is not a single scene of action combat in which the audience can see the whole set. Each and every fight is filmed in short & shaky bursts with close up zoom at nearly full darkness. That results in an atrocious experience for the audience because one can mostly see nothing but a dark shaky screen.

I suggest the two directing brothers Strause to buy themselves a steadycam and get a lesson in modern CG so that the next film contains some visible action of visible figures and might not need to disguise their bad directing abilities in such a manner.

I would advise anybody (even die hard AvP fans) against watching this film: prefer the first one or the original Aliens or the original Predator films but avoid disappointing yourself by wasting your precious time on this failure.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.

Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.

Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.

This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance. 

OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use. 

Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell... 

Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told "act". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.

The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

My dad had this movie as an 8mm reel. I loved it when he would pull out the projector, tape a sheet to the wall, and play Gerald McBoing Boing. The thought of a child who communicated through sounds fascinated me.

Nine years ago, my son was diagnosised as autistic. The doctors would ask me questions about my son such as "How does he communicate with you?" I would respond, "Have you ever seen the cartoon, Gerald McBoing Boing?" I would love to have a copy of this cartoon to show my son and his educators, this is how my son see he's world.

Recently, I spoke with a digital transfer specialist who indicated most personal 8mm films did not contain sound until the mid 1970's. I guess I was pretty lucky to have experienced the sights and sounds of Gerald McBoing Boing in 1972.
Determine the sentiment:

I was looking at the external reviews (Ebert, etc.) for this film and they were all pretty much negative. However, after reading many of them, I noticed that they all made the same point. Critics were upset that the film centers around what appears to be a senseless murder of an autistic child. Certainly, this is a disturbing image. Critics like Ebert want a traditional detective story that uncovers why the killing happened and squarely places blame on the guilty. They want blame to be cast and resolved. Well, that status-quo theme is kind of what the movie is parodying. Just like society, the critics wanted a very quick resolution so they could move on to their next tragic opera. Perhaps there is no simple question to be answered here? There is a whole lot more to what happened then what is on the surface. The film does not seek to rationalize what happens, but rather understand the why. What also steams me so much about these inane reviews is that all they look at in the way of performances is Spacey and Cheadle, who were both great (and generally are). But there are other great performances at work here other than just the two current icons of Hollywood. Gosling gives an incredible performance that really only somebody of his extreme talent could deliver. Somehow, Gosling is able to make the killer of an autistic child sympathetic. This irritates many, I am sure. However, if one watches the film, they see what Leeland's motivation is, it is wrong, but it is not evil. Malone is also on top of her game as yet another confused young character. Basically, the killing of the child in this film is not the main theme of the movie. The main theme is life itself and how people go about dealing with it, the highs and lows, and how they attempt to sometimes help others deal with their lives (which does not seem to work out very well). There is a lot of good and bad in this world and how we handle each has direct impact on how much more good and bad will take place, and sometimes a confused attempt at doing good, can lead to a whole bunch more of bad. I think this is one of the more memorable films in sometime and has an ending that is as touching as anything in recent movie history. I strongly believe people should view this film, with an open mind.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the "Our Gang" comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

One of my favorites non-MGM musicals, it's a classic!> Rita Hayworth is in top form, her beauty leaps out of the screen. Gene Kelly shows off his dancing skills and introduces to musicals his edgy and innovative choreography that eventually would change the way musicals are choreograph. Phil Silvers is the perfect second bananas, and Eve Arden injects this movie with a lot of class.

 The structure is so theatrical that one has to wonder why, in this era where major Broadway shows come from the movies, Cover Girl hasn't been adapted to theatre.
I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.

There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.

By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.

Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.

I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.

This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.

Bill


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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The sequel that no one asked for to the movie no one wanted. There are obviously too many flaws with this movie to name here, so I'll just concentrate on the acting. Miles O'Keefe would have been better suited to play the spritely Asian sidekick Thong, mainly because he would then have no dialogue. Lisa Foster delivers her lines displaying one emotion, dullness. Charles Borremel brings life to his part by pausing every five words. And finally the flamboyant, John Saxon-type guy......no comment is needed.

See "Conan the Barbarian" if you need to, but don't waste your time with this low-budget loser.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: h.o.t.s. is one of those sexy 70's drive in movies that features many of playboys famous playmates from the 70's like sexy tall blonde Susan kiger,Pamela jean Bryant,Lisa London,kc winkler and the late sexy Angela Ames.and would you believe a post partridge family Danny bonaduce?its the snobby girls verses the good girls(the hots girls)led by Susan kiger.there's a couple of comedy relief gangsters,a runaway bear,a trained seal,misplaced bras,etc;etc;think animal house meets hooters.h.o.t.s. is an enjoyable little comedy with t& a no complaints here.i actually think that Susan kiger was one of playboys sexiest playmates from the 70's.she did do a few more movies including deathscreams.if you like fun drive in movies you will no doubt enjoy h.o.t.s. 7 out of 10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. "The Gore Gore Girls" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery.
Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I just saw "Checking Out" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.

Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.

I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.

Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done!
There are one or two other Shemp-era shorts I like more (i.e. SCRAMBLED BRAINS), but I think one can say--without much argument--that in this particular episode, Shemp gives his greatest comedic performance as a stooge after rejoining the team in 1946.

Scene for scene, this episode hardly lets up: from Professor Shemp Howard's voice lessons with the glass-shattering Dee Green, to his futile attempts to win a dame's hand in marriage (this is your little snookums... will you marry me *click*) to the uproarious finish, it never fails to keep me in stitches.

I would be remiss not mention that immortal scene with Miss Hopkins (the always lovely Christine McIntyre). Btw, isn't she rather under-dressed and over amorous in greeting the man she thinks is her 'Cousin' Basil? Who knows, maybe the actual Basil was a "very" distant cousin, which makes it legal in some states (as far as I know). >:-]
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show.
PUBLIC ENEMIES is a kind of throw-back to those early 1960's gangster biographies like PORTRAIT OF A MOBSTER, MAD DOG COLL and KING OF THE ROARING TWENTIES. Although made on the cheap, the film has a great deal of energy and the acting over-all, particularly by Eric Roberts and Frank Stallone is quite good. Theresa Russell might seem too glamorous as Ma, but she has some very good moments. There are two action scenes worth noting: a shoot-out in a hotel, and a machine gun fight in the middle of the street between the Barkers and the FBI. Both sequences are nicely done, and compared to other low-bidget gangster junk like DILLINGER AND CAPONE, this film shines.

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

positive
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.

Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for "hus-bahnd," the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.

The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.
As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.

Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as "music" does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.

Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?

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

negative
Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.

Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.

Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and 1937's "Murder at the Baskervilles".

With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...
Most of the silent films I've seen have been serious in nature, so it was fun to see one with a comic touch. The setting and some of the scenes for "The Beloved Rogue" were reminiscent of 1923's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" relative to the Paris street scenes and the celebration of the 'King of Fools'. John Barrymore portrays France's greatest poet Francois Villon in a characterization that ranges quite broadly from virtual slapstick to romantically tender; that 'water into wine' bit early in the picture was rather amusing.

It seems that times never change, and it's interesting to see the movie make a cogent observation nearly a century ago - Paris has it's fool to reign for one night, while everywhere else has one all the time. How true.

The appearance of Conrad Veidt in the film was a little surprising for this viewer, I've only seen him as Major Strasser in "Casablanca", oddly one of his very last movies. As King Louis XI, he's a monarch obsessed with astrology, crafty but suspicious, and it was a bit unnerving to see how closely he resembled Brad Dourif's Wormtounge character from the final chapter of the 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy. Not exactly exuding the confidence a King of France might be expected to bear. Which is why the ascendancy of Burgundy's duke (Lawson Butt) seemed all the more plausible, until Villon rises to the occasion to put one over on both rulers.

I found it interesting that the use of inter-title cards was exceedingly spare, used only when absolutely necessary to advance the story. Without them though, one would have missed a curious nugget. It seems Villon carried out his exile from Paris at the Hostel of the Lame Flea! 

The print I viewed was of exceptional quality, the very first film presented in a one hundred Action and Suspense movie DVD set from Mill Creek Entertainment, that's saying something for a film that's now eighty years old. It's great that movies from the silent era are now finding a wider distribution in this type of commercial format, making them accessible to an entirely new generation of movie lovers.

One question - did it seem like Conrad Veidt's King Louis picked his nose on purpose, or as an inadvertent gesture that simply remained safe from the cutting room?

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

positive
ARMED AND DANGEROUS is not one of the greats of John Candy. This film about a fired cop who ends up working for a small security system run by the mob is very weak and not very much a comedy. There are some moments that I did enjoy, like looking at Candy in a pilot suit, but it doesn't seem to matter much. ARMED AND DANGEROUS is still a dangerously disappointing dud brought to us by the director of the equally dumb actioner COMMANDO. What a sad excuse for a comedy!

1 out of 5

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

"Queen of the Damned" is one of the best vampire movies I had ever seen! The movie had suspense, action, and gore. The combination of the fierce demanding attitude of the Queen and the rock mood of our star, very well acted by Stuart Townsend, makes a wonderfully done movie that only this combination can create. I'm always the one to give advice to my friends and family members on which movies are worthy of renting and when they ask me if "Queen of the Damned" is worthy, I tell them it's worthy of buying. This movie is most for sure a must-have in all horror movie lovers' homes!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Bottom-of-the-barrel stinker is so bad it's beyond funny. The "plot" is about an American mercenary, played by Reb Brown (in the film he's called a "military adviser" but it's not really clear if he's in the American military or not), helping the army of a Latin-American country fight guerrillas who winds up joining the guerrillas when the government turns on him, imprisons and tortures him. Shannon Tweed is a "sports equipment saleswoman" he picks up in a bar who gets caught up in all the intrigue. That description actually makes the movie sound better than it is, because it's really a stinker of almost Biblical proportions. How bad is it? Well, Shannon Tweed turns in the movie's most professional acting job. If that isn't an indication of just what a 12th-rate piece of junk this turkey is, nothing is From mismatched sound effects to a music score that sounds like it's from a 1940s "Z"-grade horror flick (and may very well be) to the same footage (i.e., armored personnel carriers going down the same jungle trail) reused constantly to some of the most ineptly staged "action" scenes in recent memory, this laugh-a-minute sludgefest has to be seen to be disbelieved. Tweed looks bored, Brown looks hung over, and by the time this thing is finished--if you can last that long; I couldn't--you'll know just how they feel.

Although there are a lot of explosions and gunfights, this can't be considered an "action" picture by any stretch of the imagination. It's boring (there's a scene in the back of a truck where everybody just stares at each other for three or four minutes), repetitive (the same "rebels" and "soldiers" being killed over and over), illogical (when a group of rebels is caught in an open field by a government helicopter gunship, instead of breaking for cover they just stand there staring up at it), inept (soldiers and rebels falling "dead" when no gunshots are heard, a gun battle inside a house where combatants standing against walls are machine-gunned but miraculously the walls escape undamaged) predictable (when the "Governor" says to offer a reward for Brown's capture because "someone" might turn him in, you know exactly who that "someone" will be, and it turns out to be exactly who you thought it was) and just downright stupid (pretty much everything else in the picture). Inept, brainless and stupid beyond belief. Don't waste your time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.

Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.
Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction. 

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A sprawling, overambitious, plotless comedy that has no dramatic center. It was probably intended to have an epic vision and a surrealistic flair (at least in some episodes), but the separate stories are never elevated into a meaningful whole, and the laughs are few and far between. Amusing ending, though. (*1/2)
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Man I loved Ocean's 11.

Smart movie. All eleven characters were crucial to the heist as each had their own specialised skill that was necessary to pull of the grand finale.

What on earth was Oceans 12? What was the purpose of the twelfth person? I assume it's supposed to be Zeta-Jones but she wasn't really a part of the 11 as she was trying to trip them up and working against them the whole film?? It was more like the story of Brad and Zeta-Jones' characters boring relationship with some bits from the original movie thrown in just to get some bums on seats to watch the movie.

With O-11, the gang were always a step ahead of Benedict (Garcia). They were always able to outsmart him. What happened here? He catches up with them after a tip-off and suddenly they're all wusses? The whole movie is so that they can raise the money they stole plus interest to repay back Benedict for the heist they pulled on him 3 years earlier. So next movie they're going to develop courage and brains again and get him back for making them pay him back for the first heist? Puh-lease...

This movie could have been achieved with just Brad Pitt, Zeta-Jones and 5 mins of Matt Damon for the switcheroo scene.

Slow moving movie, not the energy of the first one. I tried hard to like it and I'm usually very easy to please but I'm really disappointed.

SPOILER!!! The twist - the whole movie didn't need to have been made as the real heist was done before everything you just saw over the past 2 hours.

END SPOILER.

Wait until it comes on TV or if you're a fan of the original from 2001 please don't watch this.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In this horrible attempt at a Blair Witch mockumentary, a bunch of people go to Africa to investigate a creature called the Half-Caste. It's pretty obvious that there was no script to speak of, and that everything was improvised. That can work if you have good actors, which this film didn't. 

This movie tries to gain points for originality by exploring a more obscure myth and an exotic culture. As a result, there are a lot of scenes out in the bush where characters do "quirky African stuff" like eating elephant dung. There is also some pretty good footage of lions eating (from a National Geographic perspective) but there's not a single scare in the whole movie. 

If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust or the Blair Witch Project, this movie will hold no surprises for you, and you can probably watch better lion footage on the Discovery Channel.

Definitely a Half- Aste effort. 

A note to the filmmakers: guys, do us all a favor and next time save the "How I spent my African Vacation" home movie for your family and close friends. Nobody else wants to see it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I just came back from seeing this awesome movie!! I can relate to it so much...It reminded me when my sister had to go to college, we had to move from place to place, and my mom acts like Adele August! Boys might not like this movie since it brings tears to your eyes. One of the best real-life movies I've ever seen!! and Natalie Portman rules!! 10/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Like some people here, I love/loved Stingers! In Norway it got aired a lot later. That also means that we are in the 176th episode. (yea, that's right) I have to say that I really love Stingers! It can make me cry, laugh, smile and so on. I think I'm going to die the day we reach episode number 192. Stingers might be the on series(except from Grey's Anatomy) that I really watch! The actors are amazing! Especially Jacinta Stapleton! Personallly I think she is one of the best access we have! I know he is not like SUPER-known, but she is really a great actress! Stingers makes me want to be a cop! I LOVE IT!

P.S: Do you know if you can buy the episodes?
You the living? OK I think I am an intelligent, educated, liberal and really into films. I really like and have a great sense of humour. I was under the impression this was a bleakly painful comedy. They got paid for making this, petrol was used, electricity burnt, food was consumed, sets built........why? I blame the current state of the world on this film and all those people associated with it, I will even include us the viewing public. We are all to blame and deserve whatever coming. Its not funny, not much happens, everyone it seems is bored or boring. There are no conversations, communication is minimal. There is no plot as far as I am aware. I have in fact just lost 89 point something minutes of my life. I will never ever get that time back. The only message I have come away with is perhaps life is too short to sit around watching movies of people doing not much......and then you die!

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

negative
Although copies of this movie are hard to find, if you can find it, get it!! !!! I believe this was, aside from In The Navy, Abbott and Costello's only musical. Although they twisted the plot around a little, (I've never heard a version where the butcher goes up with him), you still enjoy the antics of the slightly idiotic but lovable Jack, and the greedy butcher, Mr. Dinklepuss. Slightly reminiscent of DuBarry Was a Lady, this uproarious film will have you rolling on the floor - only to get up and dance as Lou Costello sings. (I don't know why they didn't do that in other films.)

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

positive
"Quai des Orfevres", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, "Longtime Defence", shows his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude Chabrol.

The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes place in the world of the music halls and night clubs.

Louis Jouvet, who is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly, and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a good house wine.

Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

The other great character in the film is Dora, the photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher.

The film is one of the best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live forever because the way he brought all the elements together.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter. 

Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate. 

Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary? 

It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.

Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.
J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.

God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.

If you must see it come in late

4 out of 10

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

negative