cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

From the first to the last scene, this film is made very realistically,even too realistically that sometimes we can't see details in night scenes(it's dark as real night),in the desert(sunshine is so strong as in real desert). 

Script and actor's play are also very realistic. Shots and episodes are edited not to show things and events "effectively", to "explain" them, or,as many Hollywood films do, to "entertain" viewers. Editing here is to represent the events as if they really happened in Afganistan. Camera is set sometimes far from dying solders, even the moment when the main character Major Bandura is shot and killed.

Such method reminds me of masterpieces of Italian neo-realism. And the construction of the story here is based on the same principles as "Paisà",or "The Bicycle Thief"--chronological series of "true to life" episodes and a few pathetic moments, which at first seem to be sudden and illogical, but have inner reasons.

I think the inner reason of Major Bandura's suicidal death is religious emotion--Repentance for innocent people's death(not only his accidental killing of family in the village, but also death of solders under his command).He is not depicted as a eager believer,on the contrary he is depicted as tactful and responsible officer.Exactly for this reason his last decisions(to go back to the destroyed village and to turn his back to an armed boy, whose family he killed)seem an act of Repentance. 

The Russian Orthodox choral, which sounds at the end("Evening Sacrifice")is another context,by which all the film can be seen from this point of view.
I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says "I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called "divin marquis" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .

Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: "the fête De l'et re supreme",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).

As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory "daring" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqué? Cy Enfield's "De Sade" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Being a big fan of horror films and always manage to find something good about a picture, but this film just did not hold my interest or attention. This story revolves around a father and his daughter and a girlfriend, since his wife died a few years back. These people encounter a horrible situation in a town they stop off and visit and all the senior citizens in this town gang up against these people and almost kill them. This film reminded me of a film called "Children of the Corn" because it really involves children who are being presented to Satan and are his instruments of terror. There is plenty of chants, mambo jumble and a toy tank that completely destroys an entire family in their station wagon as well as dolls who kill a husband and wife.
Determine the sentiment:

Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so. 

Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished. Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end. 

I dare say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are present and the acting is very good.

This film was made with a mere $6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience, following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'. Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good.

This is a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A post-apocalyptic warrior goes off to save some kind of Nun and on the way meets some cyber-punks on skates who want to kick his ass. This is one of the hardest to watch films ever, There are scenes with silence that seems to last hours before somebody comes out with the next badly written, badly acted line. There are action sequences that keep repeating - and we're not talking the quickfire 1-2-3 action repeat on a particularly good kick that was made popular by eastern directors, we're talking many, many repeats of long, bad fight sequences. This is incredibly confusing at first but then quickly becomes annoying as you're watching a 30 second sequence for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. Any kind of plot or vision is lost within the confusing continuity, the only thing thats keeps this film in the videoplayer (apart from the bet from a friend that i couldn't watch it all the way through without begging for it to be turned off and disposed off safely so it may harm no-one else) is the fact that although painful, this film is unintentionally hilarious, i'm not at all a fan of those "so bad that it's funny" type of films but at parts i was in tears. Other points to note are the quality of the sound and picture but this is forgiveable as it's obvious money was a major problem in the making of this film. Final verdict - King of the "so bad they're funny" genre, anybody having that kind of genre video night should get themselves a copy. Also lets not forget that it is actually the worst film i've ever seen.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.

During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate "Be With Me" is tantamount to panning "Citizen Kane" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how "Be With Me" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's "12 Storeys" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for "Be With Me". "12 Storeys" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that "Be With Me"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.

"Be With Me" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.

"Be With Me" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's protégé Royston Tan's "4:30" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.

To criticize "Be With Me" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971).

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I had to call my mother (a WASP) to ask her about this. Was it really that bad in the 40s in New York? Surprise, she couldn't remember. So I told her to see the movie. Arthur Miller, in not a screen play but a NOVEL for a change, was 30 when he wrote this in 1945. It is a painful depiction of anti-Semitism. Yet oddly enough, there is a tender story of human relationships (Finkelstein, the Jew, with Newman, the non-Jew, primarily) underlying the cruel story. The acting is competent and the cinematography is very good.

The only reason I can think of for this not making it big in the theatre is that it's >>aaagh<< controversial.

I actually give it ten of ten. Maybe a bit high, but it's so worth seeing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.

Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.

The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.

Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully).

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most.
The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!

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

positive
I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!

The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun. 

I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.

Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.

Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
...means "take up and read", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having seen this marvelous film.

Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle, clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again.

Watch out for this young director...he's going places.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.

Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.

The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too.
What's an example of a movie review?

The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!
What's an example of a movie review?

The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made "Bamako," but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.

The nominal "plot" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as "a mock trial against key financial institutions" dealing "with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa." That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.

The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message.
Determine the sentiment:

Things that are only just now "news" were taken as a given in this shocking documentary. I fear that as the investigation proceeds, the producers of this film will be vindicated in spades.

The producers show us the Davidians, the government agents, the investigators, with all their faults and all their humanity. Nothing any reviewer can say could approach the impact of watching and listening for yourself. Pieces of evidence -- Congressional testimony, 911 tapes, news footage, expert commentary, interviews, photos and home videos -- are seamlessly woven together and tell a disturbing tale. 

Do not wait. See this film and tell your friends.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is very disappointing for one who has read the book. As written by Rafael Sabatini, this was a clean cut tale of piracy in the Caribbean, and it would have made a grand motion . Also, it would have been very simple to make. All the action takes place aboard ship and on a deserted island. Unfortunately, the screen writers took the title from Sabatini then threw the rest of the book away. Even the name of the main character was changed, and his screen personality was completely different from that of the individual described in the novel. It's a sad loss for one who loves a good sea story.
Well... What to say.

I think i shall start with a confession. I have cried 4 times in my life. once when my dad died, twice due to a girlfriend in high school, and at the end of this film. This film deals with the real confronting issues of 6 school kids, forcing them quite uncomfortably into the open for all the world to see. i have never seen a film that deals with the human emotional condition as well as this. everything from incest to incontinence is covered here and i doubt there are many people who are safe from the sting of familiarity with at least a couple of scenes.

It starts off with a suicide. at 2:37pm. then without letting you know who it was that died, the story begins to be told from the start of the day. it follows the lives of 6 school kids up until 2:37pm. it interchangeably, and edited with personal interviews of the 6 teenagers, lets you know everything about their lives. their loves, hates, dreams, desires, secrets, shame, false confidence, self loathing, corruption and arrogance. the overall outcome of which is a sort of "whodunnit" trying to discover the identity of the suicidal before it is revealed at the end of the film. without spoiling anything i must let you know. do not feel cheated by the ending. it contains a very important lesson.

And now a warning. this film is definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Many people actually walked out of the cinema half way through when i saw it. Disgusted by some of it's content. Or perhaps it's that it's sometimes hard to face the cold hard truth of reality. This is what high school is like for many people. i'm sure most would agree.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A March 1947 New York Times article described Crossfire as one of the first Hollywood films of the 1940s to "face questions of racial and religious prejudice with more forthright courage than audiences have been accustomed to expect." While RKO was producing Crossfire, Twentieth Century-Fox was making Gentleman's Agreement, another story about antisemitism. RKO raced to beat the much "ballyhooed" Fox picture to the theaters, releasing Crossfire several months before Gentleman's Agreement. In July 1947, RKO screened Crossfire for representatives of various Los Angeles religious groups. In addition, several surveys, which were designed to gauge the audience's prejudices, were conducted before and after screenings of the film. Crossfire received both praise and criticism for its depiction of antisemitism in America and was the subject of many editorials. Crossfire received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, but lost to Gentleman's Agreement. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame), Best Director and Best Screenplay (Adaptation). In September 1947, Crossfire was named Best Social Film at Cannes. In December 1947, Ebony magazine, an African-American publication, gave the film its annual award for "improving interracial understanding." Loved this movie. If you get the chance to watch it, see it.
Write a positive movie review.

This is a "docu-drama" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from "Newwww Yoke Ceety".

I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the "swamps" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the "swamps" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases "homuh-sex'l" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.

This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with "Hollywood" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I'm seen this documentary in its feature-form, in a movie theatre. And... wouah! The pictures are astonishing, one really wonder how by Jove did they manage to film those waves, those animals, those... is that a plant ? a predator ? a creature from the movie Abbyss ? Anyway, it's remarkable. Sure we've seen a lot of such documentary on TV, with weird animals and so on, but none with such a beauty, a precision, a deep emotion. The only downside is the commentary. In French it's narrated by François Perrin, usually good and familiar with beautiful documentaries, but the text is not good at all. Not enough informative of too much, innapropriatly anthropoid...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to "show biz" numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. "Where Did My Childhood Go?", "Walk Through the World With Me", and "You and I" are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!

THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.

THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!

THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.

SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).

SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well this was the WWF's last pay per view event of the millennium and it ended the year and millennium right. The huge story line of Stephanie and HHH started right here at this event when Steph turned on her dad. Vince McMahon had a great match with HHH and this event is very good I give it a 9
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

But not too hip. And not too wisecracking. "Judas Kiss" nails the new noir thing just right. Great pacing and a nuanced score round out a twisty tale filled with sex, betrayal and sure-fire one liners. Inspiring work all around. Kudos in partcular to HalHolbrook (his best work ever), Gil Bellows (Ally Mc-what?) and Carla Gugino (the best famme fatale in ages... smart, funny and ultra HOT)... I give this a 9 (out of 10) and that's because 10 should be reserved for like, Humphrey Bogart and Coen Bros movies.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Released as KING BOXER in the U.K.

This film was essentially the FIRST kung fu film to go on general release in the U.K. Many of us had ratcheted through Kurosawa's astonishingly gritty and involving dramas and were used to oriental film being beautifully shot and lit, with somewhat restrained pacing, all in all like leafing through an album of very fine still photographs that just happened to be moving.

Along come Run Run Shaw and co. with their widescreen "home movie" production values, and astonishing ripe-for-parody dubbing and all the rules have changed. KIng Boxer was the first in through the door, leaving a clearly marked trail for others to follow with their feet planted firmly on top of the blazed footsteps.

In spite of hokey plots, pantomime acting, cheesy jump-cuts and spaghetti western style snap-stepped zooms, this film was marvellous. Gorgeous without being opulent and with the most brilliant fight choreography ever to grace a screen. We loved the sickening violence, the anguish, the testosterone. The martial artists among us found some of the techniques fascinating, if flamboyant and oftentimes silly. It was so very different from the Japanese stuff we all knew, and it had lovely acrobatic grace that perfectly complemented the sickening violence and bloodstained floors. Delightful.

The "KIng Lear" scene was, at the time, quite a milestone in schlock "You cruel bastards.. My **** !!" Now it's rather less shocking, but still a bit of a gut-churner

We didn't notice that any females in sight were absolutely one-dimensional. After seeing more films of the genre, it now stands out like a sore thumb, but at the time it didn't matter

This film defined what would rapidly become the kung-fu movie clichés. All of them. Watch it and remember that until this burst onto the western screens, there was no genre for it to slot into. It was unique and awesome. It was the first kung fu movie and it still is, for me and many others, the best.
What's an example of a movie review?

As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.

- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.

- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.

- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.

- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.

- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.

- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.

- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.

- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.

- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.

- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.

- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.

- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.

- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.

As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is one of the best of the early "Star Trek" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the "Star Trek" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like "centurion" and "praetor." The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in "Spartacus." Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of "Gladiator." A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I love B movies, but I like to be aware from the beginning that I'm watching one. I can't believe someone could mess up a movie about aliens and predators so bad. 

Aliens and Predator are AWESOME. This movie made a big joke out of them. The creators didn't take this movie seriously at all. I am throughly disappointed in how the Strauss jerks handled this film. They made a mockery of amazing characters. It's like they were trying to be serious in the beginning, then their writers got high and gave up. Almost nothing was continuous, the main characters were awful and were NOT Aliens or Predators. I am so ridiculously sad that no one takes Alien and Predators seriously anymore. These characters are icons of American pop culture and the creators of this movie showed no respect to the original films. They should not be allowed to cash in on the names of the previous films and they should be ashamed of themselves
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

THEIR PURPLE MOMENT 

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).

Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Jamie Foxx absolutely IS Ray Charles. His performance is simply genius. He owns the film, just as Spacek owned "Coal Miner's Daughter" and Quaid owned "Great Balls of Fire." In fact, it's hard to remember that the part of Ray Charles is being acted, and not played by the man himself. Ray Charles is legendary. He is well-established as a musician and the music is deep, complex, and innovative ~ even more innovative than I realized before watching this movie. The film should make new fans of a young audience who might come into it knowing little about his music. Ray Charles' life provided excellent biographical material for the film, which goes well beyond being just another movie about a musician. I confess that I knew very little about the man's life until I saw this film. I came out of it being impressed with Ray Charles' courage, strength, and innovation as man and musician.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.

I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.

I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth".
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative