cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was excited at the concept of my favorite comic book hero being on television... and sorely disappointed at the end result.

The only "amazing" thing was the wall crawling (despite the visibility of the cable). I didn't think Nick Hammond was Peter Parker... and he was visibly of a different build than the guy who did the stunts in the spider suit. You could tell they were two different actors.

Granted, I can also spot in the modern Spider-Man movies when I am looking at Tobey Macguire and when I am looking at CGI. But that is from a trained eye and experience working with CGI. Still, the 70's version could have been better despite lack of Special FX.

The webs were hokey and looked like ropes that seemed to wrap around things rather than stick to them. And what was up with giving him a spider mobile to ride around in. Hello? He's the web slinger people.

Sorry... didn't mean to get so worked up, but our beloved wall crawler deserved better.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!

The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.

I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us "The English Patient." My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: "It sucked."
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This may not be the most exiting or incredible episode they've made, but in my opinion it remains as one of Star Trek and the Sci-Fi genre's most original episodes. Most ideas from retro Sci-Fi series especially including Star Trek has been reused several times, this one the other hand remains mostly as a one time triumph. This among the episodes that impressed me the most towards the end.

Another thing I like with this episode is how it has accomplished to create such and exiting and captivating story with such few special affects. Now without criticizing the episode I must admit the effects are very dated, but then again what can you expect from a TV show from 1967? But still the creature ("Horta") in this episode is basically just a carpet with some coloured rubber on it. Yet you forget this after about 1 minute and you only start thinking about it as what it's supposed to be. Also the caves don't exactly look like rock, but again you forget it after a few minutes. This episode is a living proof on how good acting and a good story, can make you ignore the visual effects.

The acting from the main cast is as usual great. This episode features the series second mind meld by Spock and is one of my favourites. So to say it simple Leonard Nimoy is definitely a scene stealer here, and his acting is excellent. Not that Kirk or Bones don't get their share of the episode but Spock is the most intriguing in this one. i like the fact that the episode is not about one specific character but evolves around the trio handling an alien problem. Also it's nice to see an episode who doesn't only happen on the Enterprise.

Like most Star Trek episodes this episode tells us to have an open mind. I won't spoil the story, but evolves around what in the start seems like a typical monster story. It has killed several humans and therefore must be killed. But is that really all there is to it? I can assure you that the explanation in the end, will not disappoint you. This is still my favourite Star Trek TOS episode and i give it a 10/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

For those of us who are part of the real world of ballet - this film is completely ridiculous. Ivan Kirov was basically a gymnast, not a ballet dancer. Viola Essen at the time was with Ballet Theater, now American Ballet Theater, and a reasonably good dancer, but except for Dame Judith Anderson, the acting is amateurish and Checkov is completely over the top .... embarrassingly so! I saw this film at age 14 and at that time, never having seen a ballet, I was very impressed. However, later in life, long after I had completed my own career as a dancer - I purchased the video tape of it, curious as to what it was like after so many years. I couldn't believe how naive Hollywood could be about the world of ballet. But it was made in the mid 40s, before The Red Shoes or The Turning Point, the latter giving a true picture of the ballet world. The entire cast of Spectre have now passed away ... Ivan Kirov (not his real name)dying at age 79. It was his one and only film, thereafter being kept by a Chicago business man .. so the rumor goes.
When a dowdy wife (Shearer) loses her husband, she decides to completely make herself over to win him back. Not "politically correct" by today's standards, but still fun to watch, especially the scenes with Marie Dressler and Hedda Hopper.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"The Journey" is a romantic version of the cold war. It's about an English woman (Deborah Kerr) trying to smuggle her former love, a Hungarian scientist (Jason Robards, Jr.), out of Hungary during the Hungary Revolt in 1956. She's on board a bus with thirteen other international people who are trying to get out of Hungary through the Austrian border.

Of course, the bus gets stopped by the Russians for a security check. The Russian officer-in-charge (Yul Brynner) becomes attracted to the English woman (Deborah Kerr)and delays the trip. Of course, the Russian officer knows the truth about the Hungarian scientist posing as a British citizen, but he decides not to arrest the scientist because he is waiting for the English woman to come to him. Of course, this all sounds absurd, but it is a fun movie to watch. Despite the romantic flow of dialogue between Mr. Brynner and Ms. Kerr, which seems inappropriate in the situation that they are in, the movie becomes suspenseful and interesting. The good acting overrides some of the silly dialogue. Perhaps, some people involved in the Hungarian Revolt would not appreciate this movie; they would consider it a piece of fluff. 

This is my favorite Yul Brynner role. He speaks with his own, masculine voice and is very attractive, especially when he becomes vulnerable. This is Deborah Kerr's second time working with Yul Brynner since they made "The King and I" in 1956. They make a very attractive couple. Too bad they never worked again. This was the second sexy role Ms. Kerr took since "From Here to Eternity". Despite the fact that Ms. Kerr was wearing heavy winter clothes throughout the movie, she was very beautiful and sensual. 

The fine supporting cast was headed by Jason Robards, Jr., in his first film role. Some of the international cast were recognizable, like for instance, Robert Morley from England. However, the rest of the actors, I have never seen before or since, were just great in the movie. In the background, it was fun to see Senta Berger, as one of the maids, speak a few lines of Hungarian. A few years later in 1966, she was in a movie, "Cast a Giant Shadow", with Yul Brynner as his leading lady. She is still working today.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For those who have enjoyed the Asterix books and films, you'll LOVE this film! Yes, I will admit that it does mix some of the books and films, but the characters are brilliant and it's not just people showing off their CGI left, right and centre. I've already seen it several times and laughed my socks off at it.

Of course it contains the main heroes Asterix (Astérix), Obelix (Obélix) and Dogmatix (Idéfix), but this time they have someone new to... deal with.

With a sense of humour like that, the Gauls will go on and on and on. Bless 'em.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The Palestinian situation is fertile and as-yet largely fallow soil for film-making. 'Divine Intervention' tries hard, and gives us an insightful peek into the almost surreal life of those caught up in the troubles, but the film amounts to little more than a handful of (admittedly lovely) visual jokes thrown onto celluloid, while the links between them become increasingly obscure as the film progresses. A missed opportunity to say something more coherent about a very topical issue.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.

I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.

The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.

If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.
Have you ever tried a kind of food that your friend made, and then said to yourself, "wow, that was not a good mix"? Well, that is how I felt after watching this film.

Many viewers will be left highly uncomfortable with this weird mix of crime and very, very corny comedy. Its almost like watching Mr. Rogers play a ruthless gangster, very weird. Some things just don't mix and this film clearly proves that.

There are some very good performances here, as Dean Stockwell, Mercedes Ruhle, and Alec Baldwin are all excellent, but that doesn't make up for the lack of balance and symmetry in the film.

Jonathan Demme has done some excellent work in films such as Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, but seems to be out of his element with this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This version is very painful to watch. All of the acting is very stilted but especially that of Norma Shearer who is still acting as though she were in a silent movie instead of a talkie. Check out the 1937 version with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell which is much more entertaining.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies, but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band, and many more.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.

Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.

The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.

Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.

Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.

As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.

I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me.
This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.

The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow. 

None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.

Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.

Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.

Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.

I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.

In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead. 

The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.

Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in "Battle Beyond the Stars", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate "Star Wars" junk wasn't needed then or now.
Inferno gives Los Angeles what it deserves-- a baptism in fire, death from above. An excellent cast of obsessed characters could survive and sweat out the passing of the coronal mass ejection but that would be no fun and certainly not dramatic. A really lame review in Variety criticized the characters for being concerned with their personal redemption instead of banning together to save the world. But what's refreshing about this big heat is that there's nothing anyone can do about it. We are, therefore, mercifully not subjected to "heart warming" scenes of fascist presidents and other big blowhard statists as they contrive implausible plots to save a chosen remnant of mankind (ala Deep Impact). Here the sweat drenched and lust-powered dirty half dozen work out their own redemption or face their personal oblivions the old fashioned way-- together as individuals or......alone with the Alone. Excellent TV film all in all. Clearly not denatured by the destructive meddlesomness of overzealous Network Execs. I highly recommend.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special. 

Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.

I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I really couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines "I didn't do it", "I could never do such a thing", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline.
Determine the sentiment:

Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.

What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.

In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.

The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.

Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.

The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.

There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.

Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
From the opening scenes of FIERCE PEOPLE (an interplay of tribal customs as photographed by the anthropologist father of the young narrator Finn Earl, demonstrating why this South American tribe of Ishkanani is so fierce) the direction of the film is nebulous: are we watching a dark comedy about comparing life in the New York streets to uncivilized peoples, or is this a message film of a more serious intent? But as the story develops this fine line between entertainment and philosophical impact becomes increasingly clear. Griffin Dunne's direction of Dirk Wittenborn's adaptation of his novel may be a bit careless at times as it strays from rational plot development, but in the end there is a strong enough final impact to patch up the holes he created.

Our narrator Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin) lives with his coke-addicted masseuse/sexually obsessed mother Liz (Diane Lane) in New York, waiting for the summer when he is to join his anthropologist father on a field trip to South America (a father he knows only from letters and videos), when a drug bust abruptly changes their lives: one of Liz's wealthy clients Ogden Osborne (Donald Sutherland) rescues the down and out family and moves them to his ten acre estate, the epitome of wealth and power. In exchange for being Osborne's private masseuse, Liz and Finn can live in the mansion with the 'filthy rich' Osbornes - daughter Mrs. Langley (Elizabeth Perkins) and grandchildren Bryce (Chris Evans) and Maya (Kristen Stewart). Osborne and his physician lead Liz on the drying out path and Finn bonds with Osborne and his grandchildren, and despite the disparity in poor versus wealthy, the living situation works - for a while. Incidents occur to alter feelings and Finn is attacked and raped by a masked assailant, a turning point for the film and Finn's view of the Osborne family. Osborne reveals his past to Finn and together they manage to discover the truth about Finn's troubling incident - and also about the fierce disease of the wealthy class.

The film uses many clips of tribal activity during the film, drawing some disturbing parallels for some of the more challenging scenes. For this viewer that works well, but when the director elects to place tribal individuals in full regalia within the context of the Osborne estate, the concept feel contrived, as though the audience has to be forced to 'get it'. The various subplots between maid Jilly (Paz de la Huerta) and Finn and the introduction of an obese retarded chalk artist Whitney (Branden Williams) push the credibility edge of emphasizing the line between the wealthy and the 'lower class', but the performances by Sutherland, Lane, and Yelchin are strong enough to make us forgive the film's lapses. Not a great film but one with a lot of worthy ideas splashed around on the screen of a project that often feels lost in its struggle for direction. Grady Harp
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see "Stick It" -- I think this was MUCH better!
I guess I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze meby their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th waynot classic, not revisionist, not Europeanbut a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleazeinexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.

Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.

These sequels are not boring or insipidbut bizarre. They are of course very badly writtenmessy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills herthen joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.

I liked the cast.

Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

(My Synopsis) Rae (Christina Ricci) was a high school slut and nymphomaniac who connects with Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) to fulfill her needs. Ronnie must report to his National Guard unit and leaves Rae all alone. Rae is not alone for long, because she is the town tramp with a powerful need to hook-up with a man. After a party, Rae is taken home by a friend who ends up beating her half to death and throws her on the side of the road. The next day, Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds Rae and carries her home. Lazarus gives medical care to Rae, and believes that he can also save her from herself. Rae is like a dog in heat so Lazarus puts a 40 pound chain around her and his radiator to keep her from going out looking for men. Lazarus has problems of his own, because his wife has just left him for another man. Lazarus turns to his blues music to relieve his pain.

(My Comment) The movie has a deep meaning to it once you get past the sex and violence. The film has a different feel to it. The story is raw and almost puts you in the movie as if you were there. The 40 pound chain is a good metaphor, and symbolic of a chastity belt. You don't give love away to anyone, but you keep it for your true love. The chain could also be a parallel to a wife who is chained to the kitchen, yet Rae didn't cook. Rae only wanted to have sex all the time whereas a wife may not. I think Craig Brewer (writer & director) has made an extraordinary movie, and Samuel L. Jackson sings a mean blues song. The story is emotionally charged, tackling the subjects of race, religion, music, and sex all into one. (Paramount Classics, Run time 1:56, Rated R)(8/10)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film gave me probably the most pleasant surprise of any I've ever seen. It was not a big-budget production and its premise, middle-age amateur jazz musicians get an unexpected professional engagement at a Catskills-like resort, seems rather modest. What's not modest is the film's success. This is a little slice-of-life movie that is most entertaining throughout. Director Frank D. Gilroy also wrote the script and it's full of interesting subplots and unexpected twists.

The actors are journeymen who do a solid job. The biggest revelation to me was Cleavon Little. He plays a professional musician who is hired to fill in for an ailing band member. His attitude immediately clashes with the others. While they see it as an opportunity for big fun and a once in a lifetime thing, he sees it as his job and not a particularly interesting one. This leads to conflict but when the group gets in trouble, he steers them through. Little, who died too young, really showed me he was a fine actor with this film.

This movie is a true sleeper, the kind that a film fan always hopes to discover. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Today, being President's Day, my wife and I had "The Notebook" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to "The Notebook" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.

This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matinée. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see "Victoria Day" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for "Dear John" and that it was written by the same writer as "The Notebook", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.

What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, "a poor man's Notebook!" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matinée and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.

Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen "Victoria Day" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying "...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.

To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.

The story was about a cloning-central owned by the "The man" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.

It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.

But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.

The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.

Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

"Eighteen" (2004) tells the story of Pip Anders, a depressed and extremely cynical young man who is estranged from his dysfunctional upper/middle class family and living on the streets of Vancouver. On his 18th birthday, he receives a cassette tape and player from his recently-deceased grandfather, relating his memoirs of his own 18th birthday, spent serving with the British army in France, trying to help a mortally-wounded comrade avoid capture by the occupying Germans. As Pip listens to the tape (Ian McKellen provided the voice of his grandfather), we see the scenes he is describing as flashbacks, alternating with daily scenes of Pip's life, as well as more recent flashbacks filling in the dark secret why Pip left home and finds it impossible to trust anyone who is nice to him.

An ambitious second film from writer/director Richard Bell ("Two Brothers"), with a polished look, excellent photography, well-developed non-stereotypical characters (with gay and straight treated equally), and commendable efforts in emotionally and physically-demanding roles from some talented new actors (especially Paul Anthony as Pip and Brendan Fletcher as his grandfather at 18). There is also a noteworthy turn by Alan Cummings as a priest who tried to help Pip, and a small supporting role played by Thea Gill ("Queer As Folk"). The complex story - in the director's own words in his DVD commentary - is meant to drive a "vortex of emotion" pushing Pip to his breaking point, and it certainly accomplishes that. My only criticisms are that the overall effect is too "schmaltzy" or artificial for an audience to truly identify with, much of the supporting dialog (and the ending) too contrived and predictable, and the direction needed to be sharper to curtail sloppy overacting in some scenes. I do recommend it, 7 stars out of 10, including extra points for a noteworthy effort.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Independent film that would make Hollywood proud. The movie substitutes good looks for good acting, a cryptic plot for a good story line, and self-absorption for character development. May be I missed something, go see it for yourself.
I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.

It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.

Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.

This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".

But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"Showtime" is a funny film starring funnymen Robert DeNiro (Meet the Parents,A Bronx Tale) and Eddie Murphy (Shrek, Dr. Dolittle). The story is this: In the beginning of the movie detective Mitch (Robert DeNiro) and another detective go into a tv store trying to bust some criminals. When the cops arrive, Tray(Eddie Murphy)a cop, tries to arrest Mitch not knowing he's a cop. During this scene loads of funny things happen which catch the eye of tv producer Chase Ritz. She is so excited about their adventures together, she decides to make a tv show called "Showtime" starring Tray (the cop) and Mitch (the detective). But that's just the funny part. The rest is strictly suspense and action. There is a foreign man who is selling and making extremely dangerous guns. While playing LAPD on the show and doing it in real life, DeNiro and Murphy have quite an adventure in this story. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a seven or 8.
I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clichéd. How this writer/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.

I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.

PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully "pitch" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.

After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece "Swept Away" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home.

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

negative