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

I just saw this film at the phoenix film festival today and loved it. The synopsis was listed in our program as "an old Shakespearean actor invites his three children to his suicide party". I wasn't sure if I was going to see it because when I read about it I liked the idea of a "suicide party" it sounded very interesting to me, but "old Shakespearean actor" had me worried that the film would be kind of dry and boring. But I decided to give it a try. I am glad that I did. It was not dry and boring in the least, that dialogue was great, funny in a clever way, but not pretentious and difficult to understand. Peter Falk was terrific in this role, he stole the show. I also was pleasantly surprised by Laura San Giacomo's performance, usually she bugs me, but I enjoyed watching her in this film very much. I think Judge Reinhold's part could have been done better by another actor, at times he seemed kind of cheesy and it looked like acting, not like you were just watching this character. But the movie was so good I was able to forgive one actor's awkwardness. I would recommend this film to anyone and have already told a few people to see it as soon as it is available to the general public. Who knew suicide could be so hilarious?
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Yes, at times "Unconditional Love" overwhelms as it bounces -- no, as it ricochets -- from one story element to another in the most unconventional use of thematic elements and characters. In fact, it wasn't until I watched the film for the second time that I began to understand what I think P.J. Hogan might have been attempting to do with this quirky, unconventional flick. Perhaps the entire film itself is a metaphor for the unconditional love for which Grace (Kathy Bates) yearns and describes in the later part of the film. Grace insists that unconditional love is just that, without condition and without qualification. So I watched "Unconditional Love" again with that in mind. I laughed much more than I did the first time, I became more involved with the characters, I began to understand the, at times, absurd turns the story takes. The performances are often over the top but no more than they need to be to fit Hogan's weird and whacky vision, a vision which moved me to tears, yearning and outbursts of side-splitting laughter. Yes, Hogan is asking a great deal of his audience. But I for one have come to truly love his film -- unconditionally.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.

And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.

Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.

Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.

The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.

The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.

Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual expression is not part of your "visage". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen. It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clichés and scenes that were predictable.

However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.

Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.

You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.

After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.

Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.

But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.

featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.

Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.

My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

If you want a horrible interpretation of "MacBeth", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to disappoint and leave you scratching your head. But that isn't all.

Not only is there sophomoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.

Its a wonder why this project was green-lighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. "D-"
This movie is filled with so many idiotic moments, that you wonder how it ever got made. For example, they get into the sewers from the Capitol and while they're in the sewers you can see signs pointing to various government buildings, and then they come up in the middle of the street! I highly doubt that government buildings would provide public access through the city sewer system. Anyways, I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 just because of its comic value. I laughed the whole way through at the idiocy of everyone involved in this movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a short section at the very end, no scenery.

The result of lack of all of these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience, provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a large number will agree with my view.

9 out of 10.

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

positive
I remember watching this film in 1981, when I was 7. It was absolutely brilliant! I found the DVD just a couple of months ago. I was nearly jumping up and down with glee!! I bought it and showed it to my kids. They loved it too. They asked what words the seahorse was singing (I didn't tell them, though, because I don't think telling the words 'gay' and 'ecstasy' to 6 year old kids is very good parenting). The songs are brilliant. I still remember them all. I'll still remember them when I'm 60! There, or near abouts. Tommy Pender is (was) such a brilliant actor. It's a pity he gave it up.

If you find the film, BUY IT! You'll love it!

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around. 

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!!
Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Im hoping this was made before Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds because it was rubbish, Seagal wasnt to blame it was down to the crap directing when the few action scenes took place. The plot was also confusing and basically just felt rushed out, maybe it was shelved and released to capitalise on Seagals newer films??

3/10

He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.

Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.

The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Errol Flynn at his best as Robin Hood of the West, fighting military red tape, confederates , indians and carpetbagger business crooks singlehanded to his great and final heroic end. Not to forget the ever reliable O. de Havilland as Lady Mary of the west. Never try to link this story to the facts and the real persons, it doesn't work out. Just enjoy it, because nobody ever claimed to make documentaries when Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn co-worked.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The book is great. It's one of my favorite books ever. The film, on the other hand, is amazingly insipid and bad! When I heard Damon would play Ripley, I knew this production was doomed. But I didn't expect it to be this bad. The actors go around and act very showy. Except for Law (and even he is guilty of some showy acting), all the actors here are near amateurish. Speaking Italian and moving one's arms or hair about shouldn't be considered as acting. Damon is miscast. He's way too stiff for a character that's supposed to be a chameleon. Paltrow is forgettable and Hoffman plays yet another effeminate slimy character. Talk about typecasting.

What's really unforgivable about the script (written by the overrated director) is that it completely forgoes every subtle details from the book and comes up with many of its own, and none of them work! The addition of the Jazz music stuff is totally WRONG! I guess Minghella's idea of Italy in the late 50s, early 60s is clouded with images of Chet Baker roaming the Italian countryside and spreading amore. Yep, Minghella is a true visionary. The film is so bleeding obvious. That silly scene when Ripley drives through the narrow street full of mirrors. Very laughable. Yes, we get the point!!! Every point or detail comes across a mile away, so much so that the film might give the audience the false impression that they have psychic powers. We know, for example, that the Blanchett character, introduced at the beginning of the movie, will return later on only complicate things. And the soundtrack, at times, is totally inappropriate. Whimsical when it shouldn't be. The film goes on for too long and in all sorts of pointless directions. There are too many boring characters populating the landscape (many that weren't in the book). This film is bad! Really bad!

Apparently, Minghella's son told his father that the Ripley novel was his favorite. Mr. Minghella then proceeded to direct it as a favor of sorts to his son. Well, the director did achieve what he set out to do: Talented Mr. Ripley, with its Hitchcock aspirations, is a film strictly made for 12 year olds!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches - yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest, realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world, and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. "Extras" and "Little Britain" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most original. These escapades never get old! 10/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I absolutely loved this movie. Great, realistic looking combat footage for one thing and a touching, genuine story also. The calm, understated manner of the lead character, Franta, makes him very likable. The human relationships in the story seemed so very typical and possible of what you could expect in war time. The bond between Franta and Carel shows the loyalty wartime comrades can have for each other and that is often described in books and interviews with veterans. The subtitles do not detract from the story at all and actually serve to underline the problems the Czech pilots had in the RAF. The postwar storyline is a great reminder that for many the suffering of WW2 did not end in 1945, especially in Russian occupied countries. The cinematography was also very good. Wish I could have seen it on the big screen.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.
What's an example of a movie review?

A buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

***Possible spoilers***

I've read up on Dahmer a little and saw the new Dahmer film (with the same name) at an earlier time. This movie here concentrates rather much on the victims and killings, too little on Dahmer himself. The film called "Dahmer" had the opposite problem, it was too little about his crimes and too much about himself.

I did not find the acting to my satisfaction, it had a certain amateur feel too it, especially the probation officer. It also seemed as if the Dahmer acting got worse every time he played against the probation officer actor. But I might be wrong about that.

What annoyed me a bit was that some of the scenes were quite disturbing but that the filmmakers seemed to try and show "the real deal" about what he did anyway. That is ok - but what I then don't understand is why the guy who ran away from his flat while Dahmer was out getting beer, was not depicted being naked, since that is also how it happened. It's not a big deal, but it just eats away further on the movies quality that such details are left out. What wasn't shown either or not even really hinted was Dahmers sexual obsession with the dead. Again, I don't mind they didn't SHOW it, but at least they could have mentioned it or built it in to the movie somehow.

Conclusion: I think the really good Dahmer film is still to be made, a movie that incorporates not only Dahmers crimes but also who he was, and why he did what he did. I think that 1.5 or 2 hours are just not enough to grasp the complexity of it all. This movie was just a cutout (excuse the pun) of Dahmers life and personality and does not give you any 'close to good' insight into his life or personality.

4/10
My partner and I sat down to watch this film over a bottle of wine last Saturday and although we initially had our reservations once the story got going it was in actual fact rather gripping. The scene in which one of the characters in brutally murdered by knitting needles was particularly shocking and echoed the work of Korean new wave auteur Park Chan Wook. The weapon of choice was a particular masterstroke and allowed us to see into the psyche of 'Granny', heavily altering the connotations of a loving, warm Grandmother into a murderous hag. The dialogue was incredibly moving and lyrical in expressing the innermost paranoia the protagonist. Pavlosky's selections of mise en scene furthermore enhance the unnerving and manical atmosphere of the nights events, combining with the Oscar worthy performances to create a chilling and thought provoking masterpiece. The ending, which I won't spoil for you here, reminded my partner and myself of M Night Shyamalan's institutional masterwork The Sixth Sense for it's mind altering twist that has left me thinking weeks after viewing. Definitely one to watch, repeatedly!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

As a big fan of Tiny Toon Adventures, I loved this movie!!! It was so funny!!! It really captured how cartoons spent their summers.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is sad, if a bit too soapy, pull at your emotions "message" movie with it's heart in the right place. For that fact alone, it's a recommended view. The highlight might be just watching them finding friendship and hanging out with each other when no one else accepts them. 

However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS - things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure. Both of them, obviously a tad naive, make it a plan to set out for New Orleans in whichever means possible. Which kinda pulled me two ways. It's a mite heart warming and I hate to nit-pick, but I found the plot wanders in a melodramatic, predictable sense and the proceedings have a coat of gloss over them like only movies can do. I couldn't escape the tugging notion I was watching a road trip movie about self discovery, sickness and growing up. For instance, I know they're young, but I found it a real task to belief in the things these boys do. Like boiling tree leaves and drinking the hot 'tea' or eating an experimental diet of chocolate bars because they believe it will combat the ravaging disease. To say nothing of them making a cross-country voyage as they do with no legal or downright scary repercussions. Still misgivings aside, those movie conventions you come to expect, it's a story worth seeing particularly with family.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Terrible adaptation of Heminway's low key love story. An American soldier (Rock Hudson) falls in love with a British nurse (Jennifer Jones) in Italy during World War 1. What's wrong with this? Virtually everything. Hudson is WAY out of his depth here. He could be a good actor but not in this movie. Jones is far too old for her role (she's 21 in the book--here she's 38...and looks it!). Also her acting wavered between overdone and underdone! They took a simple low-key love story and blew it all out of proportion. The film is fatally long (a little over 150 minutes), self-indulgent and padded to a ridiculous degree. It seems producer David O. Selznick thought he was doing "Gone With the Wind" again. Some of the scenery is truly stunning (even on a small TV screen) but there's not enough of a story to match the images. 

SPOILER!!! The ending where Jones dies is supposed to be tragic but the bad acting and overblown theatrics had me fighting not to laugh! 

To make matters worse actor Vittorio De Sica overacts to a truly embarrassing degree. Overblown, self-indulgent, badly cast and slow. Pretty terrible. This was (understandably) a financial and critical bomb and ended Selznick's career as a producer. You might want to tune in for some of the scenery at the end but it's really not worth it. I give this a 3.
This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.

It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.

But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.

Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.

Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.

But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.

This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Following the release of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937),' Walt Disney Productions has continued to produce quality animated feature-length children's film, many of which I still haven't had the pleasure of seeing. 'The AristoCats (1970),' directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, was the twentieth film in Disney's official canon, and is a romantic musical comedy revolving around a family of aristocratic cats living in Paris, France in 1910. In the mansion of the elderly Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (voiced by Hermione Baddeley), her loving feline pets  including Duchess (Eva Gabor) and her three young kittens  are the most important residents. When the bumbling butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), learns that the cats stand to inherit the old lady's entire fortune, he sets about disposing of the pets, dumping them in the countryside far from the big city. Lost and confused, Duchess and her children strike up an acquaintance with a sweet-talking alley cat, Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris), who agrees to show them the way home.

Animation-wise, 'The AristoCats' isn't anything particularly notable, with much earlier Disney films such as 'Snow White' and 'Fantasia (1940),' demonstrating a similar, or even superior, visual style. However, the story is interesting and exciting  particularly for younger audiences, I'll wager  and the musical numbers {which I wish were more numerous} are terrific. For the sake of trivia, I'll name my two favourite songs as "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and "Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat," the latter of which is a psychedelic throwback to the late 60s, with a swinging jazz band and delirious flashing colours, led by a trendy feline called the Scat Cat (Scatman Crothers). The family's journey back to Paris is eventful and adventurous, and we meet such friendly characters as Amelia and Abigail Gabble {two talkative geese}, Uncle Waldo {the pair's drunken relative}, Georges Hautecourt {Madam Bonfamille's ancient but sprightly lawyer} and Napoleon and Lafayette {two dim-witted hound dogs with a hunger for the butler's rump}.
I don't care what anyone else says, this movie is the worst piece of trash committed on film. What was John Landis thinking?

I know it's based on a series of children's books, but c'mon! Even kids hate this movie. It's pointless and boring. Tom Arnold once again amply demonstrates that his only talent is wasting production money.

I think the only reason The Stupids hasn't appeared on the 100 worst films of all time is that only 20 or so people will admit to watching this garbage. At least Hobgoblins made it on MST3K.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.

Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.

All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.

When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream?
This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.

This movie is worth renting.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Ronald Colman plays a prodigal son. While he is NOT a bad guy, he is a bit flighty and hasn't done a lot with his life other than travel the world and have a jolly good time. Now that his latest venture in Africa has failed, he's on his way home to England. His rich upper class father plans on tossing him out on his ear, though thanks to Ronald's winning style, he is reluctantly welcomed back with open arms.

At this point, there are two women in his life--showgirl Myrna Loy and rich girl Loretta Young (who is already engaged). How will all this work out and will Ronald wise up and act like a responsible adult--these are the main themes of this pleasant little film.

This isn't a great movie and certainly won't change your life, but it certainly is very entertaining and fun. Most of this is due to the always genial acting of Ronald Colman. Heck, in the heyday of his career in the 1930s, he could have played in REEFER MADNESS or some other dreck and still made it entertaining and likable due to his charming persona. His seemingly effortless style in this movie make it very easy to like him and it's easy to see why both Loretta Young and Myrna Loy are in love with him in the film! Plus, the writing is very witty and make this a nice romantic-comedy.
What's an example of a movie review?

Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The "plot" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his " cool" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear...
Determine the sentiment:

This film is the best kung fu film of all time. Although there is not wire-work and special effects like those used in Crouching Tiger, this movie uses ingenuity and creative camera-work to create memorable fighting moments, and the fight scenes are well choreographed and tight. There is a ton of action in this film with lots of great fight scenes, but the story is very good too,with lots of twists and turns. The characters are well rounded and have real depth to them, as the motivations for their actions and personality are revealed in a much greater detail than most kung fu films. There is some really great camera-work in the film, with my favorite shot starting as a close up on our hero's face showing his reaction, then pulls back quickly to reveal the scene before him that is the cause of his look. Originally, I bought the movie to hoping see some great fight scenes, but upon multiple viewings I learned how terrific the acting and story were as well. Overall, a great film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing.

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

positive
Unlike most of the reviewers of this particular movie, I'm really not the much of a Cynthia Rothrock fan, to say the least. However when I saw that the movie had Fred Williamson and Robert Forster (both great actors), I just had to watch the film. Williamson is a Dakota Smith, an alcoholic cop who is demoted to scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush and even worse having to team up with Cynthia at the behest of the captain (Robert Forster). Forster is always watchable, it's just a crying shame that the movie itself is so damn trite and clichéd. It also features one of the least terrifying villains ever to be committed to celluloid. Williamson would return to the Dakota character in a few more films, the next one being "Down N Dirty" 

Eye Candy: Nina Richardson shows some T&A; Mary Kapper goes topless 

My Grade: D 

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Arising from characters previously developed in a series of much-lauded shorts, THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is about as far from run-of-the-mill "family fare" as you can get: beautifully crafted and with witty dialogue and clever concepts, this really is a movie that will appeal to almost every member of the family.

The story concerns Wallace and his dog Gromit, who live in a village obsessed with growing large vegetables for the annual fair and who operate "Anti-Pesto," a humane solution to all those pesky rabbits that torment passionate gardeners everywhere. The business is a great success--but Wallace proves a bit too clever for his own good. When he tries to "rehabilitate" rabbits from their vegetable-crunching ways, he unexpectedly unleashes an ancient horror of legendary proportions: the Were-Rabbit! And suddenly no vegetable in town is safe! The movie is full of crazy inventions, unexpectedly smart dialogue, and references to everything from KING KONG to THE WOLF MAN--more than enough to entice even a jaded teenager--but the real charm of the thing is in its characters. The amount of personality the artists and animators can wring from bits of clay is amazing: they seem as fully alive as any flesh-and-blood actor. The DVD release (and I recommend the widescreen) includes a number of informative and entertaining extras as well. Greatly recommended! GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Helges best movie by far. Very funny, very surrealistic. If Bunuel made a movie starring Buster Keaton as Krusty the Clown it would look like this.

Brilliant performances by the cast we already know from other Schneider movies, especially Helmut Körschgen as the sidekick of 00Schneider. (Andreas Kunze who once more plays the wife in this one is a bit annoying though). And of course Helge himself as Nihil Baxter is absolutely incredible.

P.S: if this movie had a proper merchandising i would really like to buy a replica of that "Holz ist" painting.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Roy Anderssons "Du Levande" is not totally original as it is counter piece to Anderssons previous movie "Sånger från andra våningen". Still the movie has aura of total originality. Some conventions of movie making are still thrown away: most of the actors look nothing like what you would expect in movie and the shots take long time. Most of the time camera doesn't move but people move around it. The shots start from somewhere and many times the scenery builds up in amazing proportions. W.G. Sebald comes to mind in literature with same technique. Because of the time invested in every shot the suspension is really high in many of the scenes. There is a story and isn't - it is left for viewer to build up in his or her own mind. This movie is positive. It is determined not to see this all in negative way and at the same time will not pass the social injustices. One of the messages I got from it was that maybe all failures and accidents are not fatal after all. Great movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Oddly, I have very little to say about "The Box" so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella "Button, Button" from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this "adaptation", there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. "The Box" is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as "Donnie Darko" which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. "The Box" would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending it...
Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script: 

Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".

Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!

And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!

And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."

And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.

There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.

But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative