cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?

Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.

Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.
Write a positive movie review.

Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous "Oh, I say there!" I'll take the gas-pipe.

As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.
This show is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, of course its fake. But it is agonizing to watch. I personally know more creative film influenced minds that could "make" this seem real. The young lead male couldn't be more unconvincing. He line-reads everything he says. Are we really suppose to believe he knows what he is talking about? There is a plethora of ways to Blair-Witch this show up. Fear does not breed from what seems "cool" and computer generated. Nor does it generate from such proverbial lines as "What was that? Did you hear that?" Also, There are real convincing psychics out there that don't just "Want to be on screen". Another DUH-Factor is... how do these producers think we are actually going to buy that paranormal activity will just magically happen within the 2 possibly 3 days (if we are lucky) they film. I don't think so. A 2 + week at one site would be more convincing. It is also disarming that they think including "Nasa radar checks" and computer's that show fancy bs really make us scared. AND IE: Exorcisms should not be staged like the film "The Exorcist". When are they going to get it right? Possession of the Devil or other evil spirits influence people differently. They don't just snarl and lower their voice like Linda Blair or fallel around like Courtney Love on a drug binge. As stated better concentrations on "psychic ability" would aid this show greatly. We want to see and hear EVERYTHING that supposingly flashes before them. Not cut-away to other story bs. On a final note- Shooting Stars do not generate interest when you showed fake pictures of UFO's ahead of time. Might I stress again the young dark haired man that hosts this show is absolutely down-right awful. Avoid this show. For fright: watch old Unsolved Mystery episodes... not the new ones (the recreation got it oh-so wrong). But that is for a different blog.

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

negative
David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.

The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.

The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.

This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it.

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

positive
Alexander Nevsky is rightfully held up as a cinematic masterpiece. It has however aged very badly. People decide not to mention this and talk about the great battles and the great music. The sound effects may have been good then but apart from the foreboding organ all the sounds are risible. I may be shot by film buffs for this but i'm sure the modern viewer of Alexander Nevsky will agree that the blatant propaganda and the appalling music to detract from the film. I gave this film 10/10 because it is undeniably a master piece. It does have its great bits however. The costumes of the Teutonic knights are superb and the battle scenes are fairly good for the time.It is however a master piece that is showing it's age.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. "Shut up, Robert!" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. "Rabbit". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. "Crime Master Gogo". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. "Relax. PLEASE relax." I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman "Muscles" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...

And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.
Write a positive movie review.

"In Love and War" is a simple feel-good TV-film, and should be viewed as such.

(Possible spoiler)

It is the story of a WWII British soldier, Newby, captured with his commando by the Italians and imprisoned in a former orphanage. As the Italians surrender to the Allies, the commando is freed, and attempts to flee. However, the Germans arrive and the commando is captured again. Only Newby, injured, remains at large. The rest of the film recounts how he is hidden and protected by the Partisans, and his survival.

(End of spoiler)

Based on a true story, "In Love and War" is a refreshingly straightforward film. Half comedy, half romance, the story is simple and unambiguous. The 'atmosfera' is warm and sunny, and the various stereotypes (the desperately unorganized or romantic Italians, the serious stern-looking Germans and the phlegmatic and pragmatic British), although unoriginal, are still humorous. Nicola Piovani's musical score also adds to the Mediterranean flavour.

Although it is far from being a "Tea With Mussolini" or a "La Vita E Bella", "In Love and War" is a sweet simple film that will put a smile, and maybe even a little tan, on your face.
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !

Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster. 

However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.

So, how to enjoy this movie on video ? 

A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...

B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...

C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.

Bob Raymond

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

negative
The incomparable Laura Gemser appeared briefly in an erotic scene from the French "Emmanuelle 2." This amazing woman did not go unnoticed, and was soon cast as the lead in this all new Italian series, where she is the centerpiece; a beautiful photojournalist who travels the world experiencing all the mysterious eroticism that the world had to offer. In this first installment, Mae Jordan/Emanuelle is sent to Africa to photograph the people as well as the stunning landscape and wild exotic animals. Much like Sylvia Kristels character, Emanuelle has not come into her own when it comes to being open and comfortable with her own sexuality. This first film is basically about how she becomes the "Emanuelle" that most exploitation cinema fans are familiar with. Filled with gorgeous cinematography, beautiful people, and an intoxicating 70's score from the legendary Nico Fidenco, this one is sure to please. Those who enjoy the more story-driven style of the original french "Emmanuelle" should definitely like this as well. The main story here being an interesting cat and mouse tale of a womanizing playboy who comes to the realization that he has fallen in love with a woman who is the female version of him! Sexy, fun and totally entertaining throughout; a soap opera to be sure, but one with enough skin and general eye candy to keep the male viewers entertained. For some reason this is the hardest one in the series to find on DVD. there has never been a legitimate DVD for this, which is very strange. The bootlegs that sometimes appear online will have to do until someone gives this diamond of a film a proper release.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Like its near contemporaries "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.

For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark "Monte Carlo Or Bust" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.

Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his "Yank Abroad" turn in the TV series "The Persuaders", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a "bright young thing", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the "Carry On" team did this so much better in "Carry On Up The Khyber Pass".

Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the "Golden Silents", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.

Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title "Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies" but in truth the animated series "Wacky Races" did this so much better.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, "Don't Torture a Duckling" is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's "Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "New York Ripper", "Don't Torture a Duckling" dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Awful, awful, awful...

I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.

Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).

The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.

And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.

Avoid at all costs.
Mark Blankfield played Jekyll and Hyde.

Michael McGuire was the dad.

Tim Thomerson was the plastic surgeon.

Did you even see this movie? I doubt it!

Blankfield was fairly popular at this time for playing the pill-popping doctor on Fridays. Thomerson has been funny in anything he does, from movies to series to stand-up comedy. If I ever find this movie on DVD I will definitely buy it. I recorded this movie off of HBO back in '82 and have pretty much worn out the tape. One of the funniest takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme ever.

Of course. with all the cocaine references in this movie, it'd be panned as being way too politically incorrect today, as would Cheech and Chong. Too bad, because it is FUNNY, FUNNY, FUNNY!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field. 

The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.

I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.

The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years). 

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

positive
Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).

The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.

Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......

In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Wladyslaw Starewicz was a Russian-born animator living in France who did incredible things using stop-motion. I've seen a couple of these films before and they feature his favorite subjects--insects, frogs and various animals. They are extremely realistic and lifelike and even today are amazing to watch--the quality is simply fantastic.

This one stars lots and lots of frogs. They appeal to their god, Jupiter, to give them a king. Why do they need a king, wonders Jupiter--their lives are perfectly fine now. So, to teach them a nasty lesson, he makes an Egret the king and one by one it starts eating its subjects! Then, the frogs once again appeal to Jupiter, who states the obvious moral that it's best to be happy with what you have! 

While the animation quality is incredible, this is a very creepy film for kids. I would think this would terrify them both by how real the animals look as well as the story itself which is not for the faint of heart!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.

The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.

Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

"Best in Show" is a often hilarious mockumentary that takes us into the world of dog shows and some of the dog owners who prepare for the event. The only thing that separates this movie from real dog shows is that the dogs in "Best in Show" act more sane than their owners! Funny stuff from a top-notch cast that includes Eugene Levy (who co-wrote the film), Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, and Christopher Guest (who co-wrote with Levy and directed). They're all funny, but Fred Willard steals the movie with his explosively funny performance as the dog show announcer who says the most outrageous things. Plus the dogs are cute too. "Best in Show" isn't exactly the laugh riot that I expected, but there are laughs and it's worth seeing.

*** (out of four)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror!
I always thought my father had a second life and was eagerly awaiting the development of 51 Birch Street when I sat down and viewed it for the first time. Amazingly, this movie's journey took me to places I had not expected and made me rethink assumptions and judgments.Truly a remarkable personal story told in clever but straightforward manner. I especially enjoyed the film maker's use of pulling out the type of his mother's daily diary - very effective. I read the previous comment and wish to note that the sound was fine when I watched this and suspect either the film was changed somewhat or the theater could have contributed to the poorer quality of sound for the other writer.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 "Western". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.

Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.

The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles "My Bonnie" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.

Critics knocking Sophia Lorens "command of the English language" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into "proper Italian". Her "accent", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.

"Desire Under The Elms" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall "pay off" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!

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

negative
Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.

LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.

The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately..
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.

I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!

Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Before Barton jumps all over my remarks, let's all just keep in mind that opinions are like asses, we all have them.....

I loved Sigourney Weaver & Jeff Daniels, I loved the dialogue and thought the acting was sublime. Downplayed just perfectly and understated. Unlike some others, I did NOT find this @ all predictable.

I found Sigourney's role refreshingly humorous and realistic, especially her scene confronting the bully in the trailer.

I found it enjoyable and wasn't anticipating recommending this to all and sundry. This is why there are different flavors of ice cream, something to please everyone...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.

ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!

Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.

Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.

Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.

TOTAL- 3/10 */***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.

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

negative
Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.

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

negative
David "master of debonair" Niven plays the Big Boss (IVAN) who preys upon the unfortunate Richard Jordan (PINKY) by forcing the hapless ex-con to exploit his ill-found new position in a bank. Elke Sommer (Miss PELHAM) most effectively provides the female interest, whom Pinkie cannot simply cannot resist.

It seems they were unable to decide on one name for this film so instead they used four .... makes sense ???

Sadly, this turn out to be one of Niven's last roles.

Overall, this film is fun and well worth watching if you manage to catch one of its rare or late night TV screenings.


What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hey all you jive hustlers, you stone foxes, you mean dudes. Watch out cause Slaughter is back in town! If you are looking for a bad-ass, funky film to watch some night, this is just right. 'Slaughter' is back and trying to take it easy n' relax after his adventures down in Mexico. But if you are a narrow-minded gangster like 'Duncan', you are bound to seek revenge. Why, I don't know. Was 'Hoffo' in the first one his brother or what? Any who. The movie starts off with the old "assassination from a plane" routine. We all know that that is THE most effective way for taking out one guy in a picnic, full of people. Needless to say Slaughter survives the ordeal, but Cmndt. Eric Lassard, sorry George Gaynes I mean isn't that lucky. SMACK!! Also Slaughters best friend Pratt is killed. This is the start of a grand adventure, filled with the hippest, funkiest music James Brown himself has to offer. That's right 'The Godfather of Soul' has put his trademark up on this bad-boy. In addition to Jim Brown in the lead part, this movie is filled with some of the biggest names the blaxploitation scene has to offer. How about Scatman Crothers, Dick Anthony Williams, Gloria Hendry and Brock Peters. In other parts we see none other than Judith M. Brown and last but definitely least the fantastic Don Stroud as the evil henchman.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I don't know who financed it, or why, but this "want to be" vampire flick is really awful. It tries to be hip, and appeal to the young MTV-generation audience, but it is just downright laughable. The acting is horrible, and the directing is horrendous. I heard the budget was $600,000. I want to know where all the money went?
Write a positive movie review.

In 1850 in Yorkshire, a boy chimney-sweep is falsely accused of theft by his crooked master and runs away. He falls into a treacherous local river and is transported into an underwater realm, where he makes many friends and rescues the mythical Water Babies from an evil shark.

Based on a book by Charles Kingsley, this is a lovely children's film, half live-action and half animation, which is both a grim and evocative depiction of Victorian times and a terrifically enjoyable undersea adventure. It really is two films in one, which somehow complement each other and combine into a much richer whole. The animation by Tony Cuthbert, Jack Stokes and Miroslaw Kijowicz is wonderful, as is the photography by Ted Scaife and the music by Phil Coulter and Bill Martin. Pender has a great rough-diamond quality as the (literal) fish out of water - I love the moment when he's on top of the mansion, sees all the chimneys and shouts "Blimey !!" at the top of his voice. Mason and Cribbins are the filthiest, nastiest bullies you could hope to see in a costume drama (if you want to see real Victorian values, don't watch Sense And Sensibility, watch this), and Whitelaw, Pertwee (who does umpteen voices) and Percival are all excellent. This is how a good children's movie should be - good old singalong fun, but also just a little bit thoughtful, sad and frightening. High Cockallorum !!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I first saw this movie around 1968 and if I don't see it once or twice a year, I'm surprised. I've always found it engrossing, well acted, and, for Hollywood, surprisingly accurate historically. I heartily give it 10 stars and recommend it highly!
And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed "Piranha" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as "Piranha, Piranha." A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).

As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.

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

negative
Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.
Write a negative movie review.

I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good.
My wife and I saw this when we were 17. The only good thing my father ever did (get us in). This is "our movie" and the music is "our songs". Michelle's song is "our" song. Yeah, nowadays, it's a crime to show naked children on the screen, but we were screwing at 16, why not these kids? The movie is- rich boy impregnates poor girl, then rich dad steals him away from her at the end, after she gives birth under impoverished conditions. She is left alone with child. It is a love story and a "growing up" story. The music is fantastic, and the story is one any person could relate to. May be someday this will be released on DVD.

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

positive
The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.

The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.

Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.

Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.

What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.

Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.

Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.

Definitely worth a look.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed "Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something", are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The "erotic thriller" was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive