cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.

This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.

Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.

The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James.

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

positive
I watched this movie for the first time around 1990 as a young kid and it scared the Jesus out of me. I loved it so much and I was dying to get my hands on it.

In 2002, I remembered that this movie existed but I had no idea what it was called, so, I went to the I Need To Know section on IMDb and explained what the movie was about and tried to get the name of it. Anyway, eventually someone on IMDb told me, so I researched and tried to buy the movie. So eventually i got a hold of it on DVD, and I now keep this movie as one of my most valuable horror movies. I really love it, and I think anyone who watches it, will be very scared in the woods the next time they go. 9/10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Assy McGee is an out-of-control, hard-nosed detective based on the countless examples from late 20th century police dramas. The twist here is that Assy is literally a walking buttocks.

The cheap, low-brow facade of the show belies its cleverness and hidden satire. That is not to say that Assy is devoid of fart jokes, just that the toilet humor is used sparingly enough to elicit consistent laughs, not groans and eye-rolls. The title sequence of the program demonstrates the clever, subtle humor used throughout. The sequence consists of panning photos of the city set to a jazzy 70s cop theme. In one photo, a police cruiser is shown and the "camera" zooms in on the front license plate holder, which is vacant. The meaningless zoom-in satirizes the production of the typical 70s-80s cop drama and, incidentally, makes me laugh every time.

All the typical characters are included: the frustrated police chief who can't control Assy; the loyal, minority partner who acts as a foil to Assy's recklessness; the regular cops who detest Assy's means.... all are accounted for and all are hilarious satires of the typical police drama.

The voice acting, primarily performed by Larry Murphy, is nothing less than spectacular. Assy's voice--breathy and gruff with a bit of a drunken slur--is so clever and unique that it ranks alongside all-time greats like Stewie Griffin (Family Guy) and Homer Simpson (Simpsons). Though the voice is slurred, the diction is somehow clear and easy to understand. This is a nice change from other Adult Swim program voices that often require closed captioning to understand.

Besides the fantastic production and voice acting, the script is also hilarious. Assy's no- nonsense directness fuels most of the humor, particularly in his interactions with citizens outside the police force.

If you have access to the Adult Swim comedies, Assy McGee is certainly worth the watching. Each episode clocks in at a mere 8-9 minutes, so you really have little to lose.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Although this small film kind of got lost in the wake of On The Waterfront, Edge Of The City can certainly hold its own with that star studded classic. It's another story about the docks and the code of silence that rules it.

Next to the corrupt union that Lee J. Cobb ran in On The Waterfront, Jack Warden is really small time corruption. But he's real enough as the gang boss on one of the docks who intimidates the other workers by being handy with his fists and the bailing hook and he gets the rest to kickback part of their hard earned money. And it's all hard earned money in that job.

One guy Warden can't intimidate is Sidney Poitier another gang boss and when he tries to intimidate newcomer John Cassavetes, Poitier takes him under his wing. The two develop quite the friendship and Poitier and his wife Ruby Dee even fix Cassavetes up with Kathleen Maguire.

Warden is truly one loathsome creature and it's sad how by sheer force of personality and physical prowess he cows almost everyone else into submission. In that sense he's tougher than Lee J. Cobb who did have to rely on an impression collection of goons to enforce his will in On The Waterfront.

Edge Of The City marked the big screen directorial debut of Martin Ritt who did a great job with a good cast of New York based players and spot on location cinematography. The film's low budget does show, but you're so impressed with the ensemble cast you don't really care.

Cassavetes as the loner with a past and the hip and tough Poitier are both fine, but my personal favorite in this film is Ruby Dee. She should have gotten some award for her performance, her final scene with Cassavetes is outstanding.

Catch this one if ever possible. I wish it were out on DVD or VHS.
At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys Taber,whose column "Butternut Wisdom" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today.

Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is good enough

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

positive
This is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.

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

negative
Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!

The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.

Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.

The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.

There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.

Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).

Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).<p>

There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!

Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)

The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.
Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection.

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

positive
Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.

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

negative
As a former Erasmus student I enjoyed this film very much. It was so realistic and funny. It really picked up the spirit that exists among Erasmus students. I hope, many other students will follow this experience, too. However, I wonder if this movie is all that interesting to watch for people with no international experience. But at least one of my friends who has never gone on Erasmus also enjoyed it very much. I give it 9 out of 10.

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

positive
I was geared up to not like this movie, and the first 10 minutes or so did nothing to allay my fears. It starts off with 2 high school gangs squaring off against each other with bad kung-fu. A scenario found in countless other Korean films. Ho-hum. Add the fact that the story was written by the same guy who wrote "He Was Cool" (which was barely passable) and, well, I thought I was in for a nondescript 2 hours.

But don't give up so quickly! "A Romance of Their Own" was directed by Tae-gyun Kim, who also did "Volcano High" (which I thought was loads of fun). Anyway, "Romance of Their Own" soon takes a turn much for the better. A high school girl, just having moved to Seoul, finds herself in the middle of attention from two prospective suitors. Each guy has his own merit, and it is not clear which one (if either) would be the right pick.

What follows is not your usual teen love triangle. The emotions are complex, and while you may not agree with certain choices or actions as the film develops, you can certainly understand why the characters make them.

The movie asks questions of the characters and the audience. Who does one choose? At what point is one obligated to even make a choice (and is it unfair to one if it seems he is being strung along)? After you (or your heart) has made a choice, how do you react (and how *should* you react) when new information comes up that sheds new light on the situation? There is one scene, near the end, that is very subtle but perfectly captures what I think would be a real-life reaction instead of over-the-top "movie reaction." The subtlety is in a character in the background of the scene. Recent events and revelations have left him confused and emotionally overwhelmed. Basically, he doesn't know what to make of things. Instead of having him "act out" something, or look all gape-mouthed dumbstruck, he just stares off at some fixed point unable to react or say anything at all. It's like someone just pulled the plug on him. His reaction rang true to me and I appreciated the scene.

Like most Korean films, there is a mix of action, bravado, slapstick, and melodrama. Korean films often take abrupt turns (see, "Sex Is Zero" for a great example), which can be quite a shock for the uninitiated. Go ahead and initiate yourself with this one. Like it, love it, or hate it, I think most viewers will be able to relate to and appreciate the characters' actions and reactions.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting.
I've been wanting to see this movie for a very long time. I eventually just bought it on E-Bay since it's so hard to find state-side. But the wait was...somewhat worth it.

I can't say the movie was great. And I can't say that the movie was hilarious. But it was good and it has some pretty funny points. That aside the shots in this movie are just beautiful. And the entire cast, especially Brenda Blethyn (someone I hadn't seen before, sadly), were excellent.

In the end this is a feel good romantic comedy and I recommend checking it out, unless you've just had a death in the family.

If anything, the final chapter is highly worth the money. >.<
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Unusually cold and silly drama from director Sydney Pollack. Soapy plot revolves around adulterous couple perishing in a plane wreck, leaving their spouses to find eachother and connect on their own intimate level. Romance-novel writing gets sluggish treatment, although I thought the performances by leads Harrison Ford and Kristen Scott-Thomas were fine. Slick production holds interest, even though the plot keeps covering the same ground, and never builds any emotional momentum. As a result, the climax in the airport is a big 'So What?'

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

negative
How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the "talking head" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.

Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.

If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local "art house" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28/40
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A trite fish-out-of-water story about two friends from the midwest who move to the big city to seek their fortune. They become Playboy bunnies, and nothing particularly surprising happens after that. The final 15 minutes are especially cheesy. But at least the Bunnies looked good...
Midnight Madness is a movie that is unfortunately highly underrated and unappreciated. With a flood of classic "edgy" teen/college movies, this one was forgotten. As a child I would watch this movie over and over again, luckily I had it on video. This movie shows a more tame, but most exciting side of the eighties. In the cynical society we live in this day and age, with drug abuse being the "coolest" thing, it's good to see, once in awhile, a fun, innocent movie that is Midnight Madness...that is if you can find it.

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

positive
When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.

Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of cliché and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clichés were dripping all over.

The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or "redeem" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.

Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake.

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

negative
I was very impressed with the latest production from Mick Molloy. As a fan of his, I was used to a different kind of humour than displayed here. He wisely opted with a more subtle, broad style of comedy in Crackerjack, rather than his usual low brow, in-your-face ramblings. It is, at times, inconsistent and un-even, but a decent script works past that, and makes for some entertaining viewing. Directed by Paul Moloney (who has directed almost every Australian TV series imaginable), Crackerjack tells the story of Jack Simpson, a bloke that belongs to his local bowls club for the sole reason of parking. When the club hits financial trouble, he is forced to bowl competitively in an attempt to raise the funds to save the club from becoming a poker machine haven. A familiar, and successful formula, that is handled well. There is no denying that the film owes it's success to the great casting of Molloy. He seemed to have a great rapport with Samuel Johnson, and excellent chemistry with Judith Lucy, and while the character is probably not a far stretch from his own personality, you can't help but wonder why he hadn't tried his arm at film earlier. To smooth out the in-experienced cast, the delightful Frank Wilson and Bill Hunter support, and often steal their scenes. They are two fine actors and the pair cruise through their roles with ease. Had it not been for the huge success of 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', Crackerjack would have made it to number 1 at the Australian box office, but when you consider what he film is about and who is involved, even making it to number 2 was an outstanding effort. All in all, a witty, feel-good movie. Great cast, great crew, and a great soundtrack, combine to make one of the better Australian films of 2002. 7/10.

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

positive
No wonder a lot of us hate classical music; and what are the children to think? With "educational" PR like this, serious music will soon slip from life support to the morgue. Kids know when they're being talked down to, and this is no exception; why can't someone good do a movie about classical music for kids? I must admit, I enjoyed the actor who played Beethoven, he took to the role with enthusiasm and a keen balance of the poignant and humorous aspects of Beethoven's character; he obviously did his research. Otherwise, this is a third rate rehash of the old ABC Afterschool Special format, with none of the occasional charm those short films had. Sorry about the rant, but this is an important subject for young people to know about, and it could have been done well; I wonder if musicians or filmmakers were responsible? Either way, the kids are hipper than you think, folks...

Medtner

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

negative
This made for TV film is about every cliché you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.

My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.

Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.

All the foreshadowing in this "movie" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.

The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this "movie" dies in the second half.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I haven't seen this film in years, but the awful "taste" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis "to a tee" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.

The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked "Dino" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the "biz." Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the "honor" of viewing. Terrible...

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

negative
I gave this show a chance because of Jaleel White, not for his Urkel character, but mainly for the Sonic the Hedgehog voice XD So anyway, like I said, I gave it a chance, and I was very fond of it. I never cared for the Urkel character, so I was pleased to see Mr. White in a role other than the ever-so-annoying nerd. And his Calvin J. Fraiser (first called Calvin, but come the second episode, everyone started calling him "J") was very entertaining and interesting.

I think my favorite episode was when J was dating the ex-Cowboys cheerleader with the snobby kid. ("Don't you talk that way 'bout my momma!" "This is grown-up talk, you stay down there!") The only beef I have is that the show was suppose to have 3 main characters, but Mr. White's character always seemed to have the most attention and the other two (who are married) always had the back stories... It isn't exactly a good thing when a story about those two possibly being pregnant takes backseat to J. having to babysit his girlfriend's dog.....

Other than that, I really wish this show could have lasted a little longer. Unfortunetely, it seems that people weren't interested in Jaleel White as something other than the God-Awful annoying ass nerd known as Urkel....

Hope they at least put it out as a DVD box set.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I watched the movie with tears and smiles alternatively. Anger surged in me to see the ruin of Hanoi after the 12-day bombard. And by living in the country right now with my parents, who's been living in Saigon for 50 years, I understand that we're much better off now, and would have been better if the American didn't bring war here. Watching the movie, I learned more of the different kinds of wars that the America planned in Vietnam, and what disasters they caused.

The series seems to do well with the interviews with the real people. But I don't like it that some people only give generic opinions, like the analyst near the end of the series, I forgot his name.

There should also be more documentary images, like the life in the army camp of the South Vietnam, and those of the North (if possible). There's also a sudden change from the year of 1972 to 1975 (I'm not sure if the in-between was censored, because I watched this series on TV).
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.

All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. "Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.

And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.

It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.

It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs.
Pun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.

The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.

There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.

The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.

All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.

3/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this ("Here Comes Mr. Jordan" - 1941, and "Heaven Can Wait" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. "Scratch" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate "Scratchers" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B)
Determine the sentiment:

The horror of this made for TV film was that it didn't end with this one. It spawned a regular weekly series that was even worse than the pilot/movie. Most films about various professions have some type of realism to them and of course are jazzed up to make it exciting. This had none of that. If the intent was to make in "Camp" then it succeeded. It resurfaced on cable a couple of years ago and failed again. Richard Jaeckels performance as the Master Chief who does it all was the only redeeming part of this film. Campier than the Batman series of the 60's.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.

There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).

The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.

The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).

Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.

There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What a wonderful documentary - I sat down thinking this would be a rehash of the bitchy stories told in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but it is, in fact, a clear-eyed, glorious celebration of a strange and twisted era that spawned some truly great movies. What struck me was the lack of bitterness apparent in the director interviews, given that now the movie business sucks in a large fashion - instead, folk like Friedkin and Coppola's eyes seem to positively glitter recalling their glory days. The footage of an audience coming out of a daytime screening of the Exorcist was priceless. 'It was - traumatic,' one guy says. A great epitaph for the late Ted Demme, a thrilling film, I just wish it was longer - I could have sat through a three hour cut of this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spin off of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy." In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. My name is Evren Buyruk from Crestline California
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.

A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.

Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.

What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.

This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.

There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.

If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.