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

I'm from Phoenix city and the first time i saw this movie and read the book it only confirmed the stories i had heard all of my life. i asked my grandfather about the mob and he told me that when he got back from fighting in the pacific theatre he started up a CPA firm that is know the largest in the Columbus area. when he was just starting out he was asked by the mob to do financial work for them, but he said that he gently declined. even when the FBI and army came through Phoenix city and cleaned it up my grandfather wouldn't take it lightly when my mom, aunt, or uncle went across the river, but i assure you all of that is over now. the downtown area of Phoenix city is in need of restoration and it has slums by the courthouse where all of the shooting STILL OCCASIONALLY takes place over angry, uneducated, low socio-economic people, and the 14th street Phoenix-eagle bridge has been shut down for a solid 15 years and replaced by a newer 13th street bridge, but on the more fair side of Phoenix city on summerville rd. it is very quaint and the scenery depressing.

another incident was told to me by my best friend's family from high school that lives in a nothing spot on hwy 165 called Holy Trinity, Alabama, which is about 28 minutes outside of Columbus, Ga. my best friend in high school's uncle was a man that went by the name of Old Man Davis. regardless of how the movie goes, that fact is that there were 3 bosses and Old Man Davis was one of them...you can even read about him in the original book. legend has it that he was so cold-blooded that he went to downtown Phoenix city to make a deal with a man, but apparently the man backed out on the deal right in front of Old Man Davis, so the Old Man Davis proceeded to take a sawed off shotgun out of his coat and shoot the man in the chest in the middle of town by the courthouse. they say he even walked off nonchalantly because the mob had paid off every law enforcement official in town so he had nothing to worry about.

another incident is about a bridge that another one of my friends owns a rental house next to in downtown Phoenix city. it is the same bridge that the mob killed and threw a black man off of, and you can even read that part in the book. i also would like to as that in many columbus and Phoenix city civilians were asked to be extras in the movie. when the patterson's friend is murdered and brought to trial and proved guilty in front of the judge but still set free, well, the judge is my fathers partner in his law firm in columbus, who unfortunatlly is deceased.
Six students at a convent do the unthinkable - kill a nun who was overbearing. Now, eighteen years later, the nun's spirit is back and getting revenge for her murder.

Yea, basically that's the short of it. There's more to it than that, but I still have no clue what it is. The only really cool thing is the effects on the spiritual nun, as I was pretty impressed for being a more low-budget flick. I'm also confused as to whether or not it's in English. Most of the actors are Italian, and even the title here is in Italian, yet they spoke English in the film (I think, or it might've been dubbed, I still can't tell).

Anyway, the real premise of the film is pretty idiotic, and the ending not only doesn't make sense, it...well...doesn't make sense.

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

negative
This is one cheap looking movie! A stripper keeps getting attacked and raped by zombies and no one believes her. She goes to the police who also rape her. She finally finds a kid who was also attacked by the zombies and they trace the zombies back to 'The Zombie Master'. The fact that Stephanie Beaton stars as the stripper is the only reason to watch this film.

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

negative
Saw the film at the Hollywood Film Festival in Oct '04 . Mark Robertson took a huge chance writing an extremely difficult part for his first film and it paid off big in his casting of Kelly Overton. I had a strong feeling she came from the theater so I looked her up here and ...surprise, I'm right. More Hollywood actors should follow her lead, give up the expensive acting classes and get back to theater because only with that kind of training will you be prepared for a ride like this. For all the great things I can say about the film and the director (and there are many) I just can't stop talking to people about Kelly Overton's masterful performance. We'll be seeing a LOT MORE of her work, no doubt. 

Congratulations to Mark and Kelly on a daring film. Get it out in the theaters so I can bring all the people I made want to see the film ASAP!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Viewers of independent films know that once or twice a year they are going to see stories about dysfunctional families and they have come to expect them and it's becoming more of a challenge to keep them fresh but here despite the good cast it just seems more of the same. Story is about the Travis family who is trying to recover from the suicide of Matt (Kip Pardue) who was a very promising high school swimmer. Ben (Jeff Daniels) is the father who withdraws from everyone and has never treated his other son Tim (Emile Hirsch) as well as Matt but he does communicate (of some sort) to his mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) who finds his stash of pot and starts to smoke it.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Sandy also starts to flirt with much younger men like the check-out cashier at the grocery store but when she attempts to buy more marijuana she gets busted and hauled off to jail. She doesn't tell anyone what happened but she does discover bruises on Tim's body and also that Ben has taken a leave of absence from work. After all this happens Sandy falls ill and lands in the hospital where her life is in danger which forces Ben to realize that he may have to come to terms with losing another part of his family.

This film is written and directed by Dan Harris who has worked with Bryan Singer on "X2" and also the upcoming Superman film and while his script allows these characters to have genuine moments of expressing their pain and confusion the story (for me) just has too many things thrown in. The script touches on so many different areas that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all including drugs, sex, love, infidelity, abuse, neglect, experimentation with homosexuality, and a life threatening illness. If all those scenarios weren't enough for you Harris then tacks on a plot twist at the end that's supposed to sum up and explain most of everyone's feelings towards Tim. While I did roll my eyes at least 2 or 3 times with the way the script kept unrolling one thing after another I must admit that I didn't hate this film and I have to credit the actors for that. Everyone has at least one good scene somewhere in the film but I wish the story would have concentrated more on Weaver and her character than Hirsch. Weaver is exceptional and with a sharper script she could have had a role that maybe would have led to an Oscar nomination but instead we get endless scenes of Hirsch at parties or his shenanigans with the neighbor next door. Harris shows he can be a good writer/director but with this effort he just throws so many different things at the audience that the material just becomes labored and contrived.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 1st watched 2/18/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm black pearls, a curse( I wonder) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the "all-grown-up" Chuckie just annoying and the whole "pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character "carly" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

You get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. "you're luggage" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4
The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.

There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.

The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel "Waltz into Darkness" of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover/wife of Louis Mahé (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France.

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

positive
I remember disliking this movie the 1st time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I love the costumes and poses the actors make, the humor, the cinematography, the soundtrack. The scenes are very rich, and it moves very quickly. Every time I watch it, there is something new that catches my eye. Aaliyah as Akasha is probably the only thing that ruins it, but not enough.

Also, the Lestat in this movie IS different, it is not the same character. You can see that the character Armand has been given Lestat-like qualities because I'm assuming Anne wanted it in. But there is no reason to trash this movie just because it's not like books, it's a fascinating by itself.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end
What's an example of a movie review?

As a fan of old warner brothers gangster movies i had to check this out,its the 2nd best movie in the adventure classics DVD set that also had one of my favorite movies;Scott of the Antarctic on it.this was made in 1939 a good year for a lot of warner brothers movies,it boasts a great cast;John Garfield,Claude Rains,Ann Sheridan,and the dead end kids,who would be later known as the Bowery boys at monogram pictures. well a boxer(Garfield)gets framed for a murder he did'nt commit and is on the run and being tailed by a tough new york detective(Claude Rains) he ends up at a fruit picking place run by a pretty woman(Gloria Dickson)and the dead end kids(Huntz Hall,Leo Gorcey,Benard Punsley, Billy Halop,Bobby Jordan,Gabreil Dell)he later returns to boxing but tries to keep a low profile.this was directed by famed director Busby Berkley who directed timeless classics like 42nd street,goldiggers of 1933,and 35,footlight parade and many others.i would like to give a shout out to platinum DVD/video for putting out a lot of good budget priced DVD's like adventure classics(see my Scott of the Antarctic review)i give they made me a criminal 10 out of 10,great movie. ill have to point out that i have only seen 2 john Garfield movies,this one and body and soul.i thought he was a very good actor.
What's an example of a movie review?

I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).

So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.

I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.

Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.
To think this film was made the year I was born. To think people are still having their constitutional rights taken away, now in the name of "homeland security". To think this movie was intentionally banned from the American public. PUNISHMENT PARK addresses the political divide in the United States better than any movie I've ever seen. Had it been more widely seen, would it have changed anything? A movie like this is so polarizing, it has the potential to cause riots. It shakes you up and forces you to take sides. It makes you face the issue: are you for the people's right of dissent in a time of war, or for the constitution being compromised in the name of "national security"? The protagonists are forced by the government to race to the American flag in a game that undermines the very ideals the flag stands for. The acting is totally convincing. So much so, I can't see any acting going on here at all. If this is a scripted documentary, it's more convincing than any reality show on television today. PUNISHMENT PARK is possibly the most important film ever made. It really makes you think.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was "The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

In one of the many Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons, Elmer Fudd is out hunting, and Daffy tries to get him to shoot Bugs. Needless to say, Bugs has his own agenda. Moreover, "Rabbit Seasoning" makes interesting use of word order and pronouns (warning: it just might hilariously and royally mess up your speech).

I think that probably my favorite aspect of this cartoon is the costumes worn by Bugs and Daffy. One of them seems like it would have been risqué for 1952 (especially in a cartoon), but they pull it off perfectly, as they always did. All in all, this just goes to show what geniuses the people behind these cartoons were.
I'm not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I don't even know where to begin...

It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 "I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever."

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

negative
What happened to Ava Gardner in the 1940s and Marilyn Monroe in the '50s also seemed to take place for modern-day actress Michelle Pfeiffer in the '80s: Her remarkable good looks got in the way of her being taken seriously as an accomplished, superbly talented actress. Anyone looking for validation of Pfeiffer's dramatic abilities need look no further than her work in 1991's "Frankie and Johnny" or '92's "Love Field" (a personal favorite of mine); those looking to see what a splendid comedic actress she can be, when given the right part, should check out 1988's "Married to the Mob." In this one, she plays Angela Demarco, the widow of a recently "iced" Mob hit-man, who moves from her garishly tacky Long Island home to start a new life for herself and her son, while being pursued by Mob boss Dean Stockwell and FBI man Matthew Modine. While this movie has lots going for it (a very amusing script; offbeat characters; sudden sharp turns to unexpected violence, as in director Jonathan Demme's previous effort "Something Wild"; and hilarious yet menacing performances by Stockwell and Mercedes Ruehl, as his jealous wife from hell), Michelle steals the show easily. Notice how perfectly she nails Angela's undereducated, Long Island Italian accent, and the many fine mannerisms that she brings to the role to really flesh out this spunky and surprisingly bright character. Once upon a time, long ago, Oscars were handed out to actresses for comedic roles such as this one. Had this film been made 60 years ago, Michelle mighta been a contenduh...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Imagine a world, in which everyone treats anyone nicely, no foul word is ever uttered, office bickering is nonexistent, and your boss invites the office crowd regularly to self-cooked dinners where you can chat about latest interior design styles. Everything is neat, pleasant - well, just nice. In other words: you are in hell. After being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, mid-thirties Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) starts a new job as a book-keeper in a small, clean city. From the beginning he feels foreign in this proper, impersonal world of superficial kindness, surrounded by pleasant but lifeless interior architecture and likewise colleagues. Food tastes of nothing, drinks don't get you drunk, no children anywhere; after initial steps of fitting in, Andreas searches for ways to escape the bland new world. He doesn't know where he came from anymore, but still remembers rich tastes, true feelings - anything beyond the non-committal flatline life he's leading now. THE BOTHERSOME MAN resonates ideas of Huxley and Kafka, but here the cruelty is the omnipresent noncommittal neatness. Unlike PLEASANTVILLE this is not about narrow-minded bigotry, more a fable of our urban free-world civilisation of fitting in. It mostly reminds one of the ingenious FIGHT CLUB scene, in which Edward Norton walks through a mock-IKEA catalogue. Spiced with macabre humour, this Scandinavian laconic tale convinces on every level: story, characters, and relevance. A true screen gem. 8/10
Write a negative movie review.

Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of "putting together a show". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often "Stepping Out" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic "Tentacles", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of "Queer Duck: The Movie".
Write a positive movie review.

Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.

Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranksor that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.

Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere.
Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.

 The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.

 Not to be over-looked.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Respected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy. 

Mild mannered employee Leon "Foggy" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more. 

Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.
Write a positive movie review.

Funny, yes. A Freleng classic! To watch Sylvester turn green is always a treat, and it brings us back to the days when cartoon slapstick was brave and geared for the adult mind.

Loved it!
I'm absolutely disgusted this movie isn't being sold. All who love this movie should email Disney and increase the demand for it. They'd eventually have to sell it then. I'd buy copies for everybody I know. Everything and everybody in this movie did a good job, and I haven't figured out why Disney hasn't put this movie on DVD or on VHS in rental stores. At least I haven't seen any copies. This is a wicked good movie and should be seen by all. The kids in the new generation don't get to see it and I think they should. It should at least be put back on the Channel. This movie doesn't deserve a cheap download. It deserves the real thing. I'm emailing them now. This movie WILL be on DVD.

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

positive
Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline. 

Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems: 

1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.

2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?

3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs? 

4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!! 

5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe? 

6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.

7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.

8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?

This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.

Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.

I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!
Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as "Indecent," as that is the name on the main titles.

Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.

Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Meville's caper film is not as good as his most famous movie, the deliciously stylish "Le Samourai (1968)." I don't even think this is the best example of the much-loved heist subgenre. The main thing against the film is its long running time. Meville has this tendency of concentrating on too many trivial details. He could have told the same story in a relative short time, but for reasons that I don't understand, the film seems to go on and on. Still, the movie is never boring. Melville's direction impressed me and the cast is very good, especially Alain Delon as a very "cool" master thief. The movie's must-see color photography is a great asset and Melville uses sound (or lack of sound) in a very effective manner. From a technical standpoint, the movie is practically flawless. At times, one gets the feeling that Meville is merely showing off, but when someone is as talented as he is, one has little reason to complain. I still like other heist movies a little bit more (Jules Dassin's "Topkapi (1964)," just to name one), but there is no denying that this film is a good piece of pulp entertainment and a good example of what people refer to as "cool" cinema.
What's an example of a movie review?

"East Side Story" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties actually look pretty good. "My Wife Wants to Sing," "The White Mouse," and "Midnight Revue" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films.

I notice that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats.

I also notice that "West Side Story" seems to have had a strong influence on "Hot Summer." The later films may not measure up to "Singin' in the Rain," but they certainly look like they beat the hell out of "Bye Bye Birdy"
I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.

Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I was duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.

An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.

I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.

Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.

Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.

Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.

PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!