cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

This is total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!

However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Usually, Alan Alda plays characters that are too "soft" and overly verbal -- it's probably how he really lives. This time, he fits the character. Though he overacts when the verdict is being delivered.

The 1971 Attica Prison Riot and the State of New York's response is remembered by many of us as a terrifying event. Only a few journalists have told the true story. This film provides a quick look at the horrors and excesses associated with the Attica riot/revolt. Attica had a major impact on this country. Maybe the movie will stimulate someone to research the history.

I can't remember a feature movie made from the perspective of the prisoners -- though there is a great PBS piece with the actual Attica survivors/participants. The perspective of the guards held hostage is explored in "Against the Wall" with Kyle MacLachlan, Samuel L. Jackson, Clarence Williams III, and Frederic Forrest.

Back in the day, we shouted, "Attica! Attica!" It was nice to hear it in the movie. Brought back memories.

The worst part of the movie are the natural wigs Morris Chestnut and the other African Americans must wear. It would have been easy for these people to grow a 'Fro.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****
Write a positive movie review.

Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a "big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity.
What's an example of a movie review?

If this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.
My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the "burden" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, thoughboth in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall "feel" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

In Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, the owner of a cigarette factory Louis Mahé (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is engaged through correspondence with Julie Roussel and he does not know her. When Julie arrives in the island to get married with Louis, he waits for her in the docks but Louis does not recognize Julie in the passenger vessel and finds that she is totally different from the picture she had sent to Louis. They get married and Louis shares his bank accounts with her. When Julie's sister writes a letter to Louis asking her sister to write to her, Louis discovers that the woman is not Julie that is missing. Further, he finds that the woman has cleared his bank accounts and left the island. Louis and Julie's sister hire an efficient private detective Comolli (Michel Bouquet) and Louis travels to France seeking the woman, but he has a nervous breakdown in Nice and is submitted to an intense sleeping therapy in a clinic. He recovers and finds that the woman, actually Marion Vergano (Catherine Deneuve), works in the Phoenix Club Privé in Antibes and lives in the low-budget Monorail Hotel. Louis breaks in her room and when she arrives from the club, she tells that she was happy with him but her former dangerous lover Richard had blackmailed her. Louis is still in love with Marion and escapes with her to the countryside. But Comolli is chasing Marion in France accused of murdering Julie.

"La Sirène du Mississipi" is a film-noir by the great director/writer François Truffaut, with an unconventional love story of passion, murder and love that hurts. The femme fatale Catherine Deneuve is astonishing, probably in the top of her beauty and is delightful to see her face and the topless scenes on the road and in the room. Jean-Paul Belmondo is very athletic, and the sequence when he escalates the wall of the hotel is impressive. Catherine Deneuve makes this film worth and gives credibility to the passion and lust of Louis. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Sereia do Mississipi" ("The Mississippi Mermaid")
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If you like Gary Cooper, this is one of his best roles. His gentle intensity to right a wrong is what made his career. "Blayde Hollister" comes to Dallas to take revenge against Will and Brian Malowe, who burned his Georgia farm and killed his family. Inept Marshall gets in Hollister's way, attempting to arrest him when interrupted by a street shootout between Hollister and Wild Bill Hickock. The shootout is staged to get the law off Hollister, & he takes the "back East" Marshall under his wing to keep him alive in Texas, as they switch identity. 

That was a great beginning, and the picture holds up all the way through. Action may be a little "slow" by today's standards, but it is one of my top 10 favorite movies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid. 

Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.

As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.

So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it.
I am in awe of the number of people who consider this film to be decent...much less great! Do the majority of people even have basic standards for a film they watch? I just don't know anymore.

This "commercial cinematic product" doesn't really deserve the respect of being called a film. To call Dean Cain talented is a gross injustice to anyone who actually has talent. I have had a lot of respect for Lori Petty but most of that has gone right down the tubes. At least her role was extremely small. Maybe she had a bill that desperately needed to get paid.

The ignorance I saw while viewing "Firetrap" was amazing. Let me start out by getting this off my chest: if you can't show fire realistically then don't show it at all. Okay?!! It's an embarrassment to all involved when you show lame effects that don't even come close to simulating an actual burning building.

Some interesting tidbits: 1. A janitor opens the door to a large storage closet and finds the entire room engulfed in flames. What does he do? He tries to put out the fire with his broom! 2. The same janitor (who knows the building is on fire) later comes across a door marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS". His brilliant mind tells him that it would be a great idea to open said door. Big mistake! 3. A woman is giving a fantastically generous donation of $100,000 to a greyhound rescue fund but...she's wearing a fur coat to the charity event they're holding! (Wouldn't people who care about animals kinda frown on that sort of thing?) 4. Several of the people in the movie are forced into a vault of some sort with massive steel walls that even an electromagnetic pulse(!!) couldn't penetrate. Yet they have a spacious air vent leading right into the back of the thing that anyone could crawl through. That sure seems like a lapse in security.

I could go on and on but I have grown tiresome thinking about this lame movie. Our "hero" whom we are supposed to be cheering for is a career criminal who early on tries to kill some police officers. What a swell guy! If the general public wants to waste their minds away on this drivel then more power to them. I just wish I could have it erased from my memory. 1/10

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

negative
I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Bottom has been my favourite sitcom ever since i saw it on t.v and the movie is even better if your a bottom fan i say this is a must buy!!! the plot is that Eddie and Ritchie run a hotel named guest house Paradise but not all goes right for them as customers leave until a famous actress come to stay they try there best to impress her but not all well go right this is a upbringing to British cinema so buy this and you will wet yourself with laughter. also starring Simon Peggi (shaun of the dead) and also bill neigh (love actually) it might of not done good in the box office or by the looks of it on this website but don't listen to them buy this and i swear you will love it

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

positive
When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing it when it was on Foxtel last year.

Despite the age of the film it doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was.

Overall I give it a 7/10
Even though the story is light, the movie flows so beautifully and its visual so tranquil and poetic that it could almost carry the whole movie.

The film consists of four interconnected stories, all about different aspect of attraction between man and/or woman and how it frequently is ethereal. Their true desire seems to be always something that they cannot hold onto, it will flow out like a handful of sand.

I thought the most intriguing story was the last one where the more unattainable the woman was, the more the man desires her. It parallels her deep love for god, who is infinitely out of reach, but never closer to her heart.

A very good movie. 7/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.

This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws: 

1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier 

2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production 

But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal

A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate)
What's an example of a movie review?

Perhaps the weakest film in the "Kharis" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.

With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.

If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:

Main character insists she's not crazy.

"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.

Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.

Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.

Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.

Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.

3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.
Write a positive movie review.

Cary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.

Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles

10/10 from me defiantly

'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent'
Write a positive movie review.

I just saw this movie in a sneak preview and before reading my comment you have to know that it is very subjective because I love Techno, Trance, Club, House and music like that.

The movie deals with Carl, whose brother Jason (or whatever his name was) died in an accident: he fell off a rooftop, "drunk". Carl meets his brother's girlfriend Sunny and the two of them quite unmotivated some kind of private investigation about Jason's death and Carl gets involved in Jason's ex-life that was filled with clubs and drugs. The movie itself, seen from an artistic point of view, is nothing more than a big pile of s**t. The plot is predictable, all of the characters are extremely cliched and two-dimensional (stupid boy from a small town, young good-looking innocent girl, big bad drug king... the list is endless) and most of the acting such as the plot are just not credible. Matthew Rhys' performance of the stupid boy coming to big London and sudden taking drugs from people he does not even know does not seem very credible, unlike his female counterpart Sunny, performed by Sienna Guillory, whose behaviour seems more realistic to the spectator. Nothing more than a joke was Tim Curry's performance of the drug king Damian: a phony caricature, too "eeeevil" and just too ridiculous to be true.

BUT: If you like club music (the club scenes such as the selected tracks are simply brilliant), if you enjoy a simple lovestory with a sweet girl like Sunny (yes, I confess, I lost my heart ;)... that makes my comment even more subjective, I guess) with some (predictable) twists and turns you will definetely enjoy this movie.

Anybody else: F.O.R.G.E.T.....I.T.!

3 out of 10 (objective view)

7 out of 10 (my personal view and also my final vote)
Write a positive movie review.

Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.

There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.

Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.
Determine the sentiment:

First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.

J
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.

Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.

The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")

Grade: D-

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

negative
The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really "excels" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).

Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?
Write a positive movie review.

One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...

Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans... 

Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?"

Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.

Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...

Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.
What's an example of a movie review?

Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.
When "Madame" decides to let her cats inherit her it spells trouble. The snobbish Butler Edgar who is next in line to inherit decides to get rid of the cats. Thereby the story can begin and the cats can go on an adventure that would otherwise have been impossible. An adventure that lets them meet the charming, but not altogether trustworthy cat O'Malley. He helps them through many dangerous and funny situations until the inevitable happy end.

The force of this movie is in its humor and music. Edgar is simply hilarious as the insulted butler who is out to settle the score and of course he himself takes some serious beatings. One of the best scene contains him being chased by the two dogs Lafayette and Napoleon. The score is great and like in "the Jungle Book" you have scenes that is almost "musical" in the sense that the story doesn't progress and the focus is to let the protagonists express themselves via dance. And of course we like, that the score is quite Jazzy.

And of course it's not only me but also my children who love this one.

Regards Simon

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.

I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.

On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.

Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.

In short, this is dreck.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What a terrible movie! The acting in this film is about the quality of a high school play, or a story driven pornography film. This is not pornography in this film, but there sure is a lot of gratuitous nudity! This is one of the only redeeming qualities of the film, one of the only things that saved it from receiving a rating on one star. Also there are a million cops that die in this film. Hardly offensive though since the violence is so unrealistic we can only laugh. But breasts pop out and become exposed in the most surprising and hilarious times, if you enjoy really really bad movies check this one out. This is a Bonnie and Clyde type story, where a mother and her two daughters are out for revenge. This film also features a sex scene with two of the oldest people i have ever seen rolling around naked!

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine "Seaview" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.

Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to "catch fire", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.

There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the "people" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.

The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his "Lost in Space" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.

The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a "2".
This was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs. 

%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%

Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story/movie. the first half was time pass/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues. 

There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies. 

Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one. 

1.5/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.

But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.

This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.

It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.

I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.

I shudder

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

negative
This is another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.

The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.

This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The third and final Female Prisoner Scorpion film directed by Shunya Ito. The series' star, Meiko Kaji, would complete the series in the fourth installment, Grudge Song, directed by the capable Yasuhara Hasebe (who also directed Kaji in the excellent Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter). The original Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion is one of my all-time favorites. The sequel, Jailhouse 41, is nearly as good. It's generally considered the best of the series, and I might agree, I think, if it ever gets a better release on DVD (the original, by Image, is very poor). Beast Stable, in my opinion, is nearly as good as FP701. It's much slower, much more contemplative. It has its share of violence and nastiness, but there's more focus on the story and the characters. Sasori (Kaji) eludes detectives in the first scene (she is handcuffed to one and lops his arm off  and escapes with it in tow, which must be seen to be believed!) and hooks up with a freelance prostitute, Yuki. Yuki is being hassled by a local prostitution ring, which includes a goofy-looking madame with a cage full of pet crows. What really surprised me is how sad the movie is. Yuki's story, which is never resolved, it heartbreaking. The images are startling, and Ito's direction is masterful. It's too bad that he never went anywhere after he left the FP701 series. This is an awesome film.
Write a positive movie review.

This Is one of my favourite westerns. What a cast! Glenn Ford plays his role In his usual mild, controlled but firm manner. Ford plays one of the smaller ranchers In the shadow of the mighty anchor ranch that wants to swallow up the whole territory. Edward G Robinson plays the crippled patriarch of the anchor ranch and Barbera Stanwyck plays his sly scheming wife. There Is plenty of action In this western that Is quite Impressive, the scenery Is delicious and the letterbox scope photography Is breath taking and the soundtrack Is stereo! I would say that this western had a size-able budget It looks expensive. One of a series of great Glenn Ford westerns.