cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
The best thing one can say about the film "Traffic" is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series "Traffik". As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.

I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in "City of Joy". Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.

The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.

With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey. 

Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the "bad guys" getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a "different" feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best "teenager" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless "Saint Ange".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.

With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.

The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; "How can two people build an entire house of wax?", "Where do they get all the wax from?". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.

So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.
Determine the sentiment:

I saw the film and am very pleased to see a film so different in character and story to the stupid,mainstream American major productions. Its a film with a background interesting for young as much as all age- groups. Contrary to certain reviews the audience seems to split my evaluation as the film is very successful wherever yet exploited worldwide. For example in Netherlands is was ranked number 3 . Negative statements must be respected but one should expect such to be guided on a fact basis. If you have the chance view the film and enjoy it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '

With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the background.

Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.

Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.

Well that's just my 2 cents.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
François Traffaut's "Mississippi Siren" had an unconvincing plot. The screenplay required too much elasticity in suspension of disbelief. The plot went at a glacial pace. It started off in an interesting setting but soon drifted onto the shoals of melodrama that lacked logic or intelligence. What were the critics thinking? This one is overrated even to be described as a loser. Even Catherine Deneuvue, who charmed in "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and "Belle Doe Jour," managed to be simply annoying. 

We rented this movie at the same time as we rented another Traffaut film. We watched this one first, and found it to be so bad that we sent the other one back unseen at the same time.

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

negative
Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.

Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.

"Trois couleurs: Rouge" is based on the concept of "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD". The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in "Dekalog 9" it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.

In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about "dialogue tests" between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.

And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Such a shame that this wonderful bright spot on the small screen had such talent in writers and actors, such wonderful scenery that was the ultimate escapism for those in a land locked, sun deprived state. Many of the actors went on to bigger things...another indicator that there was something wonderful sadly lost. I lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, with all of my (now ex) husband's very large family in a chorus of 'NO NO!!' every time it would be yet again taken over by a baseball game broadcast. 

Someone who wrote here mentioned it was up against 'Rosanne'...all my ex and I noticed was that it was always always always preempted by BASEBALL!!!! Yes, FOX really wasted something wonderful that one and nothing will ever equal it~! Thank you for the memories of it.
The title role of this western is played by Robert Walker, Jr. He's a young gun who with partner David Carradine gets separated after doing a contract hit on a Mexican general. In eluding their pursuers Carradine and Walker become separated. Walker comes upon the camp of lawman Robert Mitchum who takes a liking to Walker and makes him a protégé and reclamation project of sorts.

This is the first of two films Robert Mitchum did with writer/director Burt Kennedy. The second was the more humorous The Good Guys and the Bad Guys. 

Not that Young Billy Young does not have its moments of hilarity. But it is a tripartite story involving the Walker reclamation, Mitchum's hunt for the bad who killed his son and a romantic triangle involving Mitchum, Angie Dickinson, and town boss Jack Kelly.

The film abounds with nepotism. David Carradine is John's son. Dean Martin's daughter Deana is in this, Walker is the son of Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones and Mitchum's son Chris plays Mitchum's son in some silent flashbacks.

Robert Mitchum got his start in westerns and always looks right at home in them. Angie Dickinson essentially repeats the role she had in Rio Bravo. Walker had a brief career playing rebellious youths and doing a good job at it. I've often wondered what happened to him. He looks hauntingly like his father. Maybe he didn't want to come to such a tragic early end like his father.

And it that wasn't enough, Mitchum fans get to hear old rumple eyes sing the title song at the beginning of the film.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day - Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias.
Write a positive movie review.

A very funny look at some of Australia's current affairs and political goings-on. The Chaser boys really seem to have fun with this show, and what I enjoy is that they all have their strengths; some are brilliant (Chas) at making complete idiots of themselves, whereas Julian can pull off the whole "I'm interviewing a famous politician and I'm about to suggest that he disguise himself as a pot of jam" type of humour.

They have great segments in the show taking the mick out of all sorts of aspects of Australian culture such as our Current Affairs Shows, our Adverts and Early Morning TV programmes. Some material is a bit tired and predictable, but overall it's a lot of fun to watch, and will leave you with a smile on your face.
Write a negative movie review.

I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time.
What's an example of a movie review?

This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen - from start to finish it was perfect in timing, atmosphere, punch lines, background music, fighting sequences and every other possible aspect you can think of. To be absolutely honest i find this movie as funny as their (Rik & Ade's) sitcom "Bottom" - maybe even funnier. I laughed constantly throughout the whole movie and can only recommend seeing this film... However, if you watch it without knowing (or liking?) the type of comedy Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson has done before, you might not think it's funny at all - but I REALLY can't understand those who dislike it - THIS IS HUMOUR FOLKS!!! (People getting hit with frying pans, guys running around wearing red rubber lingerie, green vomit filling the hallways, guys getting kicked in the b******s and getting candlesticks in the eyes - HOW can this NOT be funny???) 10/10
Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time?

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

positive
Boring, cliched and predictable. The only original bit was the Brighton location for gangsters. It is certainly no "Lock Stock etc......." Hannah was likeable in "Sliding Doors". In "Circus" I developed no empathy with his character and couldn't give a toss what happened to either him or his girlfriend. Although this movie was so cliched and predictable the ending was no surprise I was so uninterested I didn't even care why the movie was given the name "Circus"....... Booooring.......Don't visit this big top.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
-That's pretty much the whole soundtrack to this film. I just saw this baby at the Munich Film Festival and it rocked the house. Director Doug Pray is never seen in this documentary, nor I think he is even heard, but he has done a very intimate look into the lives and history of the "mixer." He has segmented his film into about eight chapters and then his motley group of enthusiastic interviews will be spiced throughout according to what they are talking about. I was never big into "scratching" but the film does a wonderful job of keeping elementary for those who know little, and infusing in-jokes for those who are experts themselves in this area. Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys is in this film, but it wasn't until after the film that I could name several heavy hitters in the industry (DJ Shadow, Q- Bert, etc). The extreme fascination for turntables by these talented and quirky DJs is evident in their explanations of what their music means to them. The film also sheds some gratifying light on these guys (and one woman) to be classified as musicians. Pray doesn't let his film idle and if there exists a slow scene it is soon re-energized by hardly ever ceasing music. If nothing else, this film will increase your slang vocabulary. I have to get back to "digging", so I'll end this review. See it, it will be of interest. Good stuff man. Good stuff.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I actually caught an ad for JAPAN SINKS in a Japanese magazine last year, and wondered what the heck it was until I saw the trailer for the film. It was then I remembered that I had seen the English translation of Sakyo Komatsu's novel some years back. I got it, and it was quite good, as well as chillingly realistic. It's enough to make the reader dread hearing any news about earthquakes in Japan.

Now, I've read the book, and seen this 2006 movie version (the first movie came out in 1973). And you know what? I thought the movie was quite good, even if there are major changes from novel to film (but that's understandable). The story is simple--a major tectonic shift will cause Japan to sink within a year. Massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis rock the country as frantic efforts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. One scientist has a plan that could stop the sinking of the country and save what's left of the landmass, but can it be implemented in time? I saw JAPAN SINKS at Otakon 2007, and while there were a couple of problems I had with it--it does run a bit too long, and a couple of the character moments were a little too sappy--I was nonetheless blown away. The sheer concept of an entire nation sinking into the sea was made terrifyingly real, and the effects were some of the best I've ever seen, rivaling anything that Hollywood has done. The film also plays no favorites with the main characters, with some not making it to the closing credits.

Frankly, I've been surprised by some of the negative comments made about this film. Difference of opinions, I guess. Personally, I enjoyed it. And I've read the original book.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Finding this piece sandwiched between a stale prequel and a rehashed 80s machomovie on a UPN affiliate's midday Saturday program would be misleading. It deserves better and definitely uses its talented leads' best attributes to its maximum advantage. Bracco and Walken team to provide a movie that while perhaps predictable to those familiar with their genre, do the streetwise, 'troubled minds' routine that they are so good at portraying. For a chance to ride a psychological roller coaster a la Fuqua's "Training Day," dive back into the world of early '90s TV movies to find "Scam"!
Neil LaBute takes a dramatic turn from his first two films, In The Company of Men & Your Friends and Neighbors, with this funny and original thriller/comedy/road movie. When Betty (Renee Zellwegger) witnesses the brutal murder of her no-good husband (Aaron Eckhart), she develops a bizarre sort of amnesia, and flees in his car, not knowing that there is large stash of drugs in the trunk. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are the hit men who follow her.

What Betty is chasing, besides a new beginning (although she can't remember the old life) is her beloved, Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Only problem: Dr. David isn't real, he's a soap opera character on the show `A Reason To Love' and he's really an egotistical actor named George McCord.

To say any more regarding what develops would be too much, but Nurse Betty is certainly original. Its hit men are, like the hired killers of Pulp Fiction, are violent yet philosophical, its take on soap operas terrific spoof material, and its acting is the best feature of all. This has to be one of the best cast films in recent years. Renee Zellwegger is perfect for Nurse Betty, with the constant gleam in her eye that pushes her in her quest. Morgan Freeman brings his constant state of grace to the role of a killer at the end of his career, and Chris Rock is his partner, a man of rage and great impatience. Greg Kinnear is at his comic best as the vain actor/soap opera doctor. There are also great supporting performances from actors such as Emmy-winner Allison Janney (The West Wing), Harriet Sansom Harris (Frasier's agent Bebe Glazer), and Kathleen Wilhoite (Chloe on ER). Actually, the supporting cast is a Who's Who of television best character actors.

A unique film that is funny one moment and chilling the next, Nurse Betty is a mix of great acting, casting, and a terrific screenplay.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?

They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.

Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples 

Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie "Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ..." uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie.
Write a negative movie review.

Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was nothing like the book. 

Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.

This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.

Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Ugh. This movie has so many unbelievable plot contrivances that they made what could have been a good movie into a hideous mess. The story is halfway decent, but the holes in the plot make the execution literally laughable. We're actually supposed to believe that the Secret Service would go against all common sense and allow the President of the United States to be put at unbelievable risk. If this is an indication of the kind of thinking that passes for good judgment among the President's protectors, then we're all in trouble. Roy Scheider turns in a good performance as the President, but it is unfortunately offset by the truly loathsome acting of Patrick Muldoon (who somehow continues to get jobs in Hollywood based solely upon his good looks and his uncanny knack of smirking at every opportunity, regardless of whether the script calls for a smirk). Perhaps someone will see this and be inspired to make a good movie from the premise--or, perhaps someone will see it and say, "Hey, if they can get a movie this bad made, maybe I can, too!"
The trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.

The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.

The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole "I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.

The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming "I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!" ("I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says "You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.", and the two women in his life say "We could see you weekends more often." and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here? 

I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.

Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Excellent exercise on multiple plans:

- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France 

- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people

- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!

The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.

Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.

Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?

Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an' Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching. Recommended.
What's an example of a movie review?

How did this film get into the Berlin Film Festival? I understand it got into the Panorama section, but still. 

This film featured:

1. No plot. 2. Horrible acting. 3. Atrocious videography. 4. Some of the worst graffiti ever captured on video.

The one clincher that accounts for most of its festival acceptances is the presence of that old standby: homosexuality. That's right, about the only thing that does happen in this film is that one graff artist makes out with another one and jerks him off. Then he feels weird about it and they have a boring old "breaking up" conversation that you might expect to hear from your first crush in middle school (featuring lines like "You kissed me first, dude."). Oh, and by the way, this is no Crying Game...you see the gay angle coming in the first ten minutes of the film. Aside from that it's mostly just bad tags, badly costumed "undercover" cops, some skateboarding, and a train ride. 

If the subject matter is of interest to anyone I recommend looking around the web for some underground graff videos taken by real graffiti artists. There's plenty out there...and they are a hell of a lot more entertaining than this crap.
Determine the sentiment:

1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9
Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.

It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.

Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling "Show me the magic!" while waving his hands around and making a "serious concentration" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.

The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.

I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is "Forbidden Planet," which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.

As for this "Tempest", its only magic is to cure insomnia.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Christopher Nolan's first film is a 'no budget' black and white film about a unemployed writer who begins following strangers, which in turn leads to robbery and also violence. It is very good.

Like in his later film 'Memento' he doesn't present the story in a linear way. Instead it jumps around somewhat so you end up really sucked in trying to piece it all together and early, apparently random, shots take on significance as the film progresses. This style also means the twists are much more effective.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance (especially if you like his later work and/or Film Noir)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone!
This era was not just the dawn of sound in cartoons, but of a cartoon character which would go down in history as the world's most famous mouse. Yes, Mickey makes his debut here, in this cheery tale of life on board a steamboat. The animation is good for it's time, and the plot - though a little simple - is quite jolly. A true classic, and if you ever manage to get it on video, you won't regret it.

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

positive
This is awful, you just could't believe it. The score is annoying, the filming is bad, for example, sometimes you see the shadow of the cameraman appearing on some actors faces. The quality of the movie is ultra bad, seems like it was made in the 20ies. It's terrible. There is a bit of blood in the beginning and through the movie but always too dark filmed. No gore no effects. The director made some better one like Blood Rites. But out there there is a following of the man, 'cause searching to find this cheap flick isn't that hard but you have to pay hard earned cash for it. Surely this will get in my top ten of worst horrormovies ever, I don't know if I would call it horror. There is too much talking, you will get bloodthirsty after watching it

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This is one of those "family" movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a "sand fairy" (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances.
If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find "Fat Man and Little Boy" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.

*** out of ****
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Wow, was this version of THE RACKETEER tough to watch! While none of the other reviews have mentioned this, the public domain version I watched was seriously flawed. The sound track was off by about 10 seconds--meaning the dialog and action never came close to matching. So, you'd hear something occur well before you saw it--a very confusing proposition! The worst is where you hear a gun shot and only later doe the guy get hit and slump to his death in a taxi.

While this seriously marred the film, it also made concentrating on the dialog easier--and showed the serious shortcomings of it as well. The dialog was simply awful--often delivered with almost no inflection or feeling. As one review said, it was like watching a high school play. Part of this is understandable, as sound was a new medium, but this film's dialog was bad even compared to other 1929 films--really bad. And, like many of these early sound films, the film was just too talky--with sappy and overly melodramatic language and just not much action. And you'd THINK with a title like "The Racketeer" that there would be some action!! However, it's really a sappy romance--with very little action.

The film finds Carol Lombard straddled with an alcoholic musician. She herself ends up stealing to try to take care of him--and the crook, Robert Armstrong, comes to her assistance. When Armstrong catches her cheating at cards, he covers for her and then helps the drunk brother to get on his feet--and naturally he falls for her in the process. The problem is that once the drunk sobers up, he, too, wants Lombard and she needs to choose between them. Wow...a recovering drunk or a mobster...talk about a couple great prospects! Overall, it's a bit hard to rate considering the lousy print I saw. However, even if you ignore this, the film has a lot of problems due to its poor use of dialog and excessively talky nature. And...it was sappy too boot.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.

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

negative