cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good. 

You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up. 

This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?

This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!

The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller. 

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I cannot believe that this is a film that I did not like. . . I usually find that I am open minded about all sorts of stuff. . . but this flick is just, well, bad.

I could deal with the subject matter if the script and story were better. I could deal with the acting if the camera work was better or if the characters were better established. . . I think it mostly boils down to script and direction though.

it was just bad.

i want to give this the lowest rating, but . . . I don't believe in that, at least this guy got off his tail to make a movie. . . so he gets four stars (just above the average rating which this has so far)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, "Charlie Wilson's War" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. "Charlie Wilson's War" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1/2 out of *****).

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

positive
I grew up in New York and this show came on when I was four-years-old. I had half-day kindergarten and this was on WPIX Channel 11 in the afternoon. I just loved the music and stories and remember humming them around the house when playing.

I just saw part of an episode on YouTube and for a moment I could remember how it felt watching those shows as a small child. I, of course, stopped watching when I got in 1st grade because it was on before school got out (no VCR's or DVR's back then). I grew up, not realizing that the show was still on until I was in 11th grade! 

I also had no idea that there are DVD's and wish my nieces and nephews were young enough to enjoy this show, but now they're all past the demographic, or I'd buy all of them DVD sets. This was so much better than a lot of the kid shows today.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A quick glance at the premise of this film would seem to indicate just another dumb '80's inbred/backwood slash-fest; the type where sex equals death and the actors are all annoying stereotypes you actually want to die. However, "JBD" delivers considerably more.

Rather than focus on bare flesh and gore (though there is a little of each- no sex however), the flick focuses on delivering impending dread/mounting tension amidst a lovely scenic backdrop. These feelings are further heightened by a cast of realistically likable characters and antagonists that are more amoral than cardboard definitions of evil. Oh yeah- George Kennedy is here too and when is that not a good thing? 

If you liked "Wrong Turn", then watch this to see where much of its' methodology came from.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Well...it's about time! Van Damme is back and kicking in this action thriller that's his best film in recent years. The plot isn't too inventive but the whole border patrol theme is interesting and the ex-marines as drug smugglers twist is cool. But what makes this movie awesome is the fact that Van Damme is back to doing martial arts again. His latest films have been more acting oriented, but in "The Shepard", JCVD is back to dropping the bad guys and looks to be in excellent shape. There are some impressive fight scenes and Van Damme shows he can still pull out the old famous 360-spinning heel kick. For being a low-budget action movie, it does have good sets and great stunts. Van Damme says some humorous lines and shows that he's improving as an actor. I'm glad he's back to dealing out some Van Damage...i've been let down by the lack of fighting in his recent films. Scott Adkins is great in his role and Van Damme and him have a 1 on 1 showdown at the end. Overall, it's one of Van Damme's better films and it will keep you entertained. A must rent for JCVD fans. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for another martial arts epic like "Bloodsport" or "Kickboxer". Nok Su Kow!

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

We've all played Halo and Socom and GTA and Resi etc. but none of them can stand up to GE007. The game itself is great. I have literally burned out my N64 playing this great game, along with Zelda OOT. This game along alone built the mold that is essential for all modern shooters. on top of that the multi-player is great. The Story mode itself is worth playing a hundred times over and more. Its a great game for when your board and you want to just shoot up some people and there are endless unlock ables. (cheats, Aztec, Egyptian, god knows how many Multiplayer charries, and the three difficulties as well as the famous '007' difficulty Our modern games are great but when you sit down and play this game you get a certain feeling that few other games can give you. And with the Online capabilities of newer shooting games we rarely see this old two on two death match style. and when we do its no where near as good as this games. And when you get bored of the story, there are endless mysteries, glitches and easter eggs to be found and taken advantage of. 

This is definitely one of the greatest shooting games of all time.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: John Cassavetes is on the run from the law. He is at the bottom of the heap. He sees Negro Sidney Poitier as his equal and they quickly become friends, forming a sort of alliance against a bully of a foreman played by Jack Warden.

As someone who has worked in a warehouse myself when I was younger, I can tell you that the warehouse fights, complete with tumbling packing cases and flailing grappling hooks are as realistic as it gets. I've been in fights like these myself, although no one got killed.

The introduction of Sidney Poitier's widow is a variation on Shakespeare's Shylock "Do I not bleed?" This is an anti racist film, which, at the time, was much needed.

All the three principle characters - Warden, Cassavetes and Poitier - are superb, with Warden the most outstanding of the three.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!

Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.

With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.

This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.

Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...

As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a lifetime."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?

As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.

Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The "conversation" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.

I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.

One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS "700 Club" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the "alien" makeup is more believable..grin).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Internet is a wondrous thing is it not? I am watching a taped episode of one of my all time favorite documentaries, "Vietnam:The Ten Thousand Day War", from my DVR in Florida USA to my laptop in Kuwait; I'm writing a review about this series and have just read another review from someone who actually lives in Vietnam! Amazing. I would like to just say that for Minh Nguyen to make the statement that America brought the war to Vietnam is one sided. I know America was the main player in the west but it takes two sides to wage war. The Soviets and the Chinese were major arms providers to the North so why Mr Nguyen doesn't mention them as partially to blame is showing an ignorance (well, I think we all know why he doesn't mention them, either ignorance from being raised in a communist system and its political dogma, or because he to scared to say the truth for fear of being arrested.). Also, Mr Nguyen, I guess the parts about the North being the main aggressor it whole war were not shown in your country so to blame America again shows ignorance. Regardless, its interesting to read a review from Vietnam (of course that could be made up as well but I'll take that as real), at least the communist east is somewhat open. As far as the mini series; why do I love it? It doesn't focus on the American involvement solely. This was a war that started 15 years before America got involved and the series covers every facet of the history so thats a real plus. The footage used is first rate, all the Vietnam War programs you see made now will use the same footage so you are not missing anything by watching this older series. The date this series was made is another plus. It has all the major players being interviewed which you can't do now because they are dead from old age, it's a major historical reference. Third, Richard Basehart adds a very distinctive narrative voice, his voice sounds as distinguished as James Earl Jones voice would and I think thats very steep praise. I don't think you could find a better war documentary ever made, it's like taking the relatively modern technology of 1980 and transplanting it to the year 1950 and interviewing all the generals and politicians on both sides of world war two, it does that for the Vietnam War.

OK, I do see some bias, its subtle, a 1970's-80's style subtle bias kind of like NPR "All Things Considered" bias where it all seems so straight forward but when you blink you end up shaking your head. In this shows case the later episodes don't throw a whole lot of light on the role of the media and propaganda in general, all useful tools to influence the outcome of a war, DON'T YOU THINK????? 

From an OIF War Veteran going through the same thing 30 years later.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I don't know why all of the critics say this was a bad movie, this is one of my all-time favorite movies. Tommy (Chris Farley) and Richard (David Spade) are a great match. Tommy is the stupid one who spent seven years in college, finally passing with a D+. Richard is the smart kid who was hated by everyone in school. How can you not laugh when the two of them are singing "Superstar" by The Carpenters passionatly and all of a sudden the hood pops up? In all this is a great movie, I recommend it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is about Carlos "The Jackal" (Quinn), an international terrorist who, by CIA agent Henry Fields's (Sutherland) description, appears to maim women and children for the heck of it. At least that's what he says to guilt US Naval Officer Annibal Ramirez (Quinn again) into taking on the assignment of posing as Carlos and setting him up as a traitor in the eyes of the KGB. Ramirez is apparently physically identical to Carlos but mentally he is his antithesis. He is borne of order and Carlos is borne of chaos.

The movie isn't all shoot-gun-jump-around action, and that's a good thing. In its first half, Ramirez undergoes training to act and think like Carlos, and that's actually where the movie achieves its distinction from other run-of-the-mill action flicks. An Israeli agent (Kingsley), joins Fields in training Ramirez, and together they appear to take on the roles of parents in the birthing of Ramirez's new character. Ramirez is taught to dislike the things Carlos dislikes, to act on the split second like Carlos would, and even to make love like Carlos (courtesy of an ex-girlfriend of Carlos's). Naturally all that he is taught would be put to good use in the later half of the movie. It's a little contrived but Quinn gives a riveting performance as a Carlos-wannabe.

Another thing I liked about this movie was that it didn't utilize the much overdone plot point in evil twin movies - you know, the one in which the evil twin insinuates himself into the good twin's family. Ramirez's family does come into the picture, but instead they highlight how his new character wrecks havoc on his family life.

Good chuckle humor is injected into this movie, often coming the acerbic duo of Sutherland and Kingsley. An exception is the overused and apparently gratuitous joke involving Ramirez's first name (Annibal, Annabelle, get it?). Also overdone was the constant harping by the duo about how powerful and cunning and intelligent Carlos is. In my opinion, during the final showdown, the payoff wasn't able to match the build-up.

On the whole, the movie was enjoyable. I'm not a big action flick fan but this movie was more intelligent and engrossing than the average action movie and it maintained my attention throughout.

My rating: 9/10

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Tempo Di Uccidere (Time To Kill) by Guiliano Montaldo is a bit of a strange film, but it's good in it's own way.

I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a "Once Upon a Time in America" way- only shorter.

Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.

The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.

I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.

The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.

So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Four stories about the drug trade in Europe become intertwined over the course of this 6 part miniseries. In Germany a businessman is arrested on drug smuggling charges, and his wife attempts to save her family by continuing her husband's illegal trade. Meanwhile the British Home Secretary travels to Pakistan to negotiate an aid package that he hopes will stop the drug flow from that country. Even as he does this however his own daughter succumbs to heroin addiction, tearing their family apart. This is the miniseries on which the American film and miniseries were based. The original is far superior to its two decendants. The poverty and desperation of the third world are portrayed very well. It is stark, uncompromising and brutal.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The original The Man Who Knew Too Much brought Alfred Hitchcock acclaim for the first time outside of the United Kingdom. Of course part of the reason for the acclaim was that folks marveled how Hitchcock on such a skimpy budget as compared to lavish Hollywood products was able to provide so much on the screen. The original film was shot inside a studio.

For whatever reason he chose this of all his films to remake, Hitchcock now with an international reputation and a big Hollywood studio behind him (Paramount)decided to see what The Man Who Knew Too Much would be like with a lavish budget. This is shot on location in Marrakesh and London and has two big international names for box office. This was James Stewart's third of four Hitchcock films and his only teaming with Doris Day and her only Hitchcock film.

I do wonder why Hitchcock never used Doris again. At first glance she would fit the profile of blond leading ladies that Hitchcock favored. Possibly because her wholesome screen image was at odds with the sophistication Hitchcock also wanted in his blondes. 

Doris does some of her best acting ever in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her best scene is when her doctor husband James Stewart gives her a sedative before telling her their son has been kidnapped by an English couple who befriended them in Morocco. Stewart and Day play off each other beautifully in that scene. But Doris especially as she registers about four different emotions at once. 

Day and Stewart are on vacation with their son Christopher Olsen in Morocco and they make the acquaintance of Frenchman Daniel Gelin and the aforementioned English couple, Bernard Miles and Brenda DaBanzie. Gelin is stabbed in the back at a market place in Marrakesh and whispers some dying words to Stewart about an assassination to take place in Albert Hall in London. Their child is snatched in order to insure their silence.

For the only time I can think of a hit song came out of a Hitchcock film. Doris in fact plays a noted singer who retired from the stage to be wife and mother. The song was Que Sera Sera and I remember it well at the age of 9. You couldn't go anywhere without hearing it in 1956, it even competed with the fast rising Elvis Presley that year. Que Sera Sera won the Academy Award for Best Song beating out such titles as True Love from High Society and the title song from Around the World in 80 Days. It became Doris Day's theme song for the rest of her life and still is should she ever want to come back.

In fact the song is worked quite nicely into the plot as Doris sings it at an embassy party at the climax.

Instead of doing it with mirrors, Hitchcock shot the assassination scene at the real Albert Hall and like another reviewer said it's not directed, it's choreographed. You'll be hanging on your seats during that moment.

This was remake well worth doing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both "Breathless" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with "Easy Rider". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. "Head" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.

The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic / Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10/10)
Determine the sentiment:

I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him "That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen." I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)

I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.

There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.

I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.

DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as "the white guy", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.

Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?

But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

That this film has such a low IMDb rating is not surprising. In our post-Enron era, do we really need any more reminders of America's obsession with the greed creed? The topic has become so politically charged that a lot of viewers not only are not going to be entertained by movies of this sort, but will respond with barely concealed rage. It was all I could do to sit quietly through this cinematic memo of corporate corruption without extracting the DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces.

What's really irksome with these kinds of films, including "Purpose", is their pretense that behind the glitter, there's some meaningful message that makes the film worthwhile. In "Purpose", I found no such meaningful message. What I did find was a story that idolized the materialistic trappings of capitalistic power and wealth. The two main characters, nauseating in their glibness, do very little actual work. Instead, they party, they play golf, they strut their coolness, they sound "hip" with dialogue straight out of MTV-culture-speak: "rock my world", and "Now get back to partying; that's an order". John is smug, self-important, shallow, and smirks a lot. Robert, who wears funky little glasses, is even worse.

The film includes two youthful garage geeks, who look and sound like they're right out of the film "Antitrust" (2001). Stereotypes are played for all they're worth, and in this film also include chic-looking computer equipment, and Barbie doll chicks on hand for those occasions when our can-do future billionaires need some relaxation after all that heavy-duty partying. And with the time-bound images and dialogue that such a story necessitates, can you imagine how dated this film will be in fifteen years?

About the best I can do for this waste of cinematic celluloid is to say that it does have some nice aerial views of San Francisco. The film would have been a lot more enjoyable, a lot more entertaining, if they had ditched those odious characters and that repulsive story, and simply flown us viewers around in that little plane for the film's duration.
Cheers to all the wonderful fans of this film that have not only seen and appreciate it, but (based on the many literate comments) actually GET IT! I for one have always considered Paul Mazursky's "Tempest" a musing on the Shakespeare play of the same name, as has been noted in a few of the other reviews here. On the other hand, if you're looking for a more straightforward adaptation of the play, you should look elsewhere. As an experiment, however, it succeeds just spectacularly. Charming, moving, funny, sad, dramatic ... it's all of that and much more. Cast, locations, script, music are just fantastic. Cassavetes and Rowland were never better. Susan Sarandon's turn more than hinted at the great work to come from her in the future. Molly Ringwald makes her film debut memorable and you just have to love Raul Julia's performance ... he steals the show in several scenes. What's more, the always great Cassavetes was confident and assured enough a performer to have let him! A study on what the thematic elements of Shakespeare's classic might be life if updated into more "modern times," Mazursky's "Tempest" burns brilliantly!

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

positive
The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson/introduction to bluegrass music.

Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.

Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
this movies is really special ! it's about a young french who go in Barcelona (spain) in order to study and in barcleona he meets other youngs europeean like him. This film he's the EUROPEAN MOVIES of the YEAR so go watch it !

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

positive
My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: CORRIDORS OF BLOOD 

Aspect ratio: 1.66:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.

Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.

Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Not only Why? But "What were they thinking?" This must have been some

sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies

that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film

frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film

making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Closet Land is an amazing, terrifying piece of cinema. It features only two actors in a single set, but never loses your attention. The set design is imaginative and troubling, the staging of scenes maintains your attention, while adding to your own sense of confusion and terror. The acting is outstanding, with Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe having the duty of carrying every scene.

I first saw this film in 1991, soon after it came out on video. It didn't play in theaters where I lived; not surprising, given its political content. It should be seen, though. It features a brilliant staging of the torture and interrogation techniques used by repressive societies to instill fear and obedience in its citizens. The country is never named, which makes it all the more striking. It could be anywhere; East, West, 3rd World, 1st World. It illustrates what happens when a small group of people decide what is best for everyone; when government becomes the ruler of the citizens, rather than the servant.

Madeleine Stowe is a children's author who has been dragged from her bed in the night and subjected to terror and torture. She finds herself in a room with Alan Rickman, a seemingly pleasant functionary. At first it seems a horrible mistake and she is free to go; but, fear causes her to remain and the terror escalates. She is increasingly subjected to physical and mental torture. The interrogator uses sensory deprivation, temporal manipulation, confusion, auditory manipulation, role play, and twisted logic to break down the author. She is humiliated and browbeaten, forced to endure strenuous bodily positions, deprived of food and water.

Through it all, she refuses to give in; to do what the interrogator asks. She is told that it will all end if she just signs a confession. A simple little act. She refuses. Through it all, she employs defense mechanisms that have developed since childhood. It is slowly revealed that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse. To survive, she developed fantasy worlds and characters that would take her away from the abuse. These mechanisms allow her to transcend her torture and turn the tables on her interrogator. She starts attacking his own beliefs and profession, forcing him to examine his own life and motives. In the end, she is free, because she maintains the freedom of thought. The interrogator is the one trapped by the state.

This movie was made during the height of the Cold war, Apartheid, and at a time when the crimes of many governments throughout the world made daily news. It is even more timely in a world where "enemy combatants" are held and interrogated in secret prisons, denied legal rights or counsel; where "ethnic cleansing" lays waste to whole societies, and humanitarian aid is denied. It demonstrates that the individual can stand up to the state or other oppressor by refusing to give in to fear and terror.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.

The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.

~Chris C.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Piranha starts out as expected, stupid white people going to discover new lands and exploit them. I thought for a while it might be a cannibal film. It starts off like so many others, showing nothing but shots off untouched Amazon rain forest. For all I know it could be Florida. At this point you figure some animal mutilation or natives will pop up. Instead you get the acting talents of William Smith, who starred in L.A. Vice and Angels Die Hard. He plays Caribe, an acclaimed hunter, who I would describe him as Jack Palance Light. He is bigger in stature, but not quite the Jack Palance goodness. As for natives, you don't really get that many. Where's the piranha? Should I even ask that question? Caribe now hunts humans, I guess. He doesn't really pursue anyone till the end of the movie though, just stares at them. Caribe does race one of the tourists on a motorcycle in a over-dramatic Smokey and the Bandit kind of way. The motorcycle challenge happens for no real reason other than an action sequence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tourist challenge a stranger to a motorcycle race in the jungle. Never actually. Do they live, do they die? Will you care? Anybody wanna race on motorcycles? Caution: this film contains extreme dry look. My advice is to rent a Jack Palance classic like Craze.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The film begins in Latvia just after WWI. Being a history teacher, I knew that multinational troops occupied much of Russia during this time. There was serious concern about the spread of Bolshevism and the troops were there ostensibly to protect their nations' interests. However, some times they flew missions or had armed conflicts with the Communist army, as the nations involved really wanted to see the so-called "Whites" win. However, the Whites were deeply factionalized--some wanting the return of a czar, some wanting a republic and some wanting something in between. Because of these mixed goals and a lack of a real commitment by the foreign armies, the whole expedition was doomed and left the USSR after only a year or two. However, what I did NOT know was that German troops were also involved. This surprised me, as they had just lost WWI and weren't in the best shape to be mounting such an expedition.

This is the backdrop for the film, but it's also about a pro-Communist rich lady and her ill-fated love for a childhood friend who is among the German troops. She throws herself at him repeatedly but in each case he rebuffs her. So, she then sublimates these desires by various affairs. While none of this sex is all that graphic, this and the underlying reason the man isn't interested make this a rather adult film and one I wouldn't show to younger audiences.

While the setting for this film is interesting, the overall film is as gray and lifeless as any I have seen. I don't recommend it unless you are an amazingly patient person or you are really into overrated German films. I especially warn away anyone who suffers with depression, as it will no doubt make it worse. The simple fact is that there are so many better German films out there waiting to be seen--such as MOSTLY MARTHA, DAS BOOT, MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN, WINGS OF DESIRE or ALI, FEAR EATS THE SOUL (among others).