cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Sure, most people will designate "Island of the Fishmen" as silly and trashy hokum, but can you honestly name one other movie that brings forward THIS many exhilarating themes? This Italian gem stands for pure entertainment and features stuff like voodoo, volcanic eruptions, mutant fish-creatures, the mysterious continent of Atlantis, treasure-hunting, a remote island filled with death traps and utterly mad scientists! All this and much more in one simple movie? Yes, please! Close-minded opponents of Italian horror cinema can easily tag this film as a cheap exploitation version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but the truth is that this is so much more! "Island of the Fishmen" delivers thrills and adventure from start to finish with surprisingly convincing special effects and astonishingly stylish camera-work. The story promisingly opens with a small group of prisoners, survivors of a shipwreck, washing ashore a tropical island. They encounter the sadistic Edmond Rackham who rules over a native tribeand a legion of genetically created amphibian monsters that live in the island's swamps. There are so many twists and additional sub-plots in the story that it's almost impossible to write a summary but, trust me, this gem is worth checking out. Sergio Martino once again proves that he's an ingenious filmmaker who has the talent to be commercial-minded and creative at the same time. He makes great use of the beautiful island location and also the interior sets look very impressive. The staggering underwater footage and imaginative scenery really lift this film high above the normal standards of late 70's exploitation. I don't quite understand why Roger Corman reworked the original so much and released it on the American market under a different title ("Screamers"), because there are very few elements open for improvement. The cast members are all Sergio Martino regulars (with the exception of the great Joseph Cotton is a neat supportive rule) and give away great performances. In case you can get your hands on the recently restored German version, you're treated to fifteen uncut minutes of extra action. See it!

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy

I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy
Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.

This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.

The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I don't usually like to see movies while they're still in theaters because of high ticket prices but I saw a poster for Some Things That Stay and I thought, "that young actress looks intelligent and mysterious, not like the usual blonde teenybopper BS". So I decided to take the plunge and see this movie on it's opening night. 

I must tell you, I was happily surprised. I went to this film with no expectations. I didn't really know what it would be about, but the raw emotion and honest teenage experiences expressed by Katie Boland left me feeling rather satisfied with my decision. Alberta Watson also did a fantastic job as the role of Tamara's disease-stricken mother and I must also add that I was quite impressed with the comedic stylings of Megan Park as Tamara's friend Brenda. 

The film was wonderfully directed by Gail Harvey, and pulled together in the kind of kitschy 50's way that leaves you feeling warm and happy, even if the storyline tended not to be so uplifting. I also thought that the film was well-shot, many beautiful images of a 1950's countryside will remain in my mind for weeks to come. 

This film as a whole was quirky and great. I found it to be unpredictable and although the story ends in a somewhat open-ended way, I was still left satisfied. Whether you are looking for a fun, yet powerful coming-of-age story, or simply want to reminisce about life in the 1950's, I guarantee this film is for you. Even if you have no expectations, it is still quite likely that you will be most impressed. Give this one a shot!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Heaven Can Wait" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.

The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.

This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.

Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.
What's an example of a movie review?

the movie is precious, and cage is a babe. 

but will anyone agree with me in saying that the punk representation in this movie is ATROCIOUS?!?! 

where's the clash? the ramones?? misfits? social distortion? the cramps?? sex pistols?! ANYONE?!?!?!?! the music is this movie is incredibly disappointing! at LEAST they play the cure.

plus, randy's feathered hair and pleated khakis...

this definitely looks like a movie about "punks" the way that a bunch of movie industry squares see punks.

although it's a 90's movie, SLC punk paints a much more accurate picture of the punk rock scene in the early 1980's. just sayin'.
several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.

at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.

9 out of 10

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Very good "Precoder" starring Dick Barthelmess, which in a way, kind of reminded me of Hawks' "Only Angels Have Wings" (1939), in which Barthelmess also acted. This film was directed by masterful William Wellman, who was responsible for the landmark aviation Silent picture "Wings".

Barthelmess plays a devil-may-care airplane pilot, who is a blamed for an aviation accident. Afterwards he meets and falls for pretty Sally Eilers, who participates as part of an Act in an itinerant Air Circus; but when Barthelmess' brother appears in scene, a triangular relationship ensues.

"Central Airport" has many thrilling moments and some moving and touching scenes too, thanks to the great chemistry that develops between Barthelmess and Eilers (who, in my opinion, in this film resembles very much actress Dorothy Mackaill). Tom Brown is good as Barthelmess brother, fresh from his success in Wyler's "Tom Brown of Culver".

Great special effects, good flying stunts, swiftly paced film; in all, highly entertaining. Don't miss it when TCM airs it again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's "running the show," so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending. 

Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star "hated it" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!) 

Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these "critics" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a "waist (sic) of time." Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase "altruism coefficient" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they "get it" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.

I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.

See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral "test" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Have you ever wondered what its like to feel FREE? I am sure that each one of us know the meaning of freedom and never seriously think of using it to our advantage. HARI OM shows the audience what freedom actually means. In this film freedom is described in the form of style represented by Isa's discovery of India. Isa discovers her inner true love when she is in a Rickshaw journey with Mr. HARI OM. She looks at life differently and portrays freedom that every woman restricts in herself when she is in a relationship.

This film is definitely "worth a watch", and I saw this the first time in Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF), and I left the cinema hall with complete satisfaction.

"Watch it"!
What's an example of a movie review?

007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever.

Better than this game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love Goldeneye.

This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie itself.

The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the gameplay.

It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: "For England James?". I answered: "No, for ME!" It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the movie. I love accomplishing every objective.

The multiplayer gaming is even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill.

The music and sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of the movie.

After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games are produced.

Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo!
I found Dominion to be a lousy attempt to continue the success of the story. The original movie was a story about evil, and how it can infiltrate our lives.

Schrader's version is lacking in evil. Viewers do not get an overwhelming sense of dread, fear, or even foreboding. Harlin's version offers evident evil, shows violations of the church's sanctity, and builds a convincing story that is plausible, given Father Merrin's background. Schrader's story leaves one wondering exactly what happened. Dominion does not evoke the emotions of the viewers to empathize with Father Merrin, and leaves the viewer wondering exactly why he was troubled in the first place.

Anyone interested in seeing a sequel which lives up to the original should see Exorcist: The Beginning.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every time, at least a dozen times.

Most of these actors were unknown at the time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't have current name recognition probably don't want it.

This was a fun ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is the movie that, pretty much, sounded the death knell for the auteur in Hollywood. At over 40 million bucks, Heaven's Gate is so poorly conceived and executed it would take a lifetime to break down every area of failure. What really galls me the most about it is that technically it's very bad, an unforgivable sin for the money that went into it. John Hurt's commencement speech at Harvard is inaudible, as is a conversation between Kris Kristofferson and Richard Masur at the train station. Some people seem to think Cimino intended this as a "style". He didn't. It's just bad sound recording. The characters are not particularly well-drawn, except for the four or five leads; in the climactic battle scene, it's difficult to tell who's the bad guys and who's the good guys. Even on that level, it's impossible to enjoy the movie. The casting of Isabelle Huppert as the town madam is a joke, her French accent renders the whole character a fraud. The acting is generally stiff, without any range or depth of feeling; even Christopher Walken is bad. John Hurt's character is the only one with any swagger or vitality (although Hurt, in his 40s, playing a fresh-faced Harvard grad with bags under his eyes is patently ridiculous). 

 I guess to say that it's overlong is overkill. The roller-skating sequence could have been easily cut, the cockfight scene is rapidly becoming a movie cliche, and the final scene on board the ocean liner is right out the Twilight Zone. Having Rod Serling appear before the camera at the end to explain what we just watched would have been the perfect finale. Actually, those scenes in and of themselves are not bad, but Cimino has not earned the right to include them, because what he's given us as the "meat" of the picture IS so incompetently bad. The editing is poor, especially in the grand battle climax. At one point, the same explosion with the same wagon wheel flying from the blast is used three different times. I wish could I say something- anything- nice about this movie: a great scene, a great performance, even one memorable line of dialogue, but I can't. It is all just one big unholy mess. About the only thing I did like was the cinematography and the Montana locations, which are stunning. Even Cimino couldn't screw that up. This is a long, boring, bad movie by all standards. And the people who say that it gets bashed only because of the cost overruns are just kidding themselves. 1/2 * out of 4
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.

Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.

This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!".

Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.

So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! -
...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The world is going to miss John Frankenheimer. This was his first feature film and it was four years before he directed his second, but don't let that dissuade you from seeking it out. Frankenheimer's direction is assured, and he gets some compelling performances out of his cast.

Someone else has already pointed them out, but I also want to talk up James Gregory and Whit Bissell in two key supporting roles. Both would work for Frankenheimer again -- Gregory most notably as the bumbling senator in "The Manchurian Candidate" -- and they do good work for him here.

If the whole thing seems too simple in the end, that's merely because Frankenheimer and writer Robert Dozier chose to tell a simple story, and they do it well. Keep a lookout for it -- Turner Classic Movies just might show it again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!
Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.

"Snakes On A Train", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster "Snakes On A Plane" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.

Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.

The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.

The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.

And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's "Best of Britain" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.

The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.

In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.

This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.

Horrible.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.

So why do I hate this movie über alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but

***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW*** 

our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.

***END OF SPOILERS***

Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated.
Write a positive movie review.

At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clichés - at times COOLEY HIGH almost feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine film.

The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to just how little cared-for this excellent film is.
Determine the sentiment:

I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's "La pianiste"...The psychological sickness of the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism, incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes, the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at it. The "mise en scène" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french actress ever.

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

positive
The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the "Payback Night".....

As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. "Dark Harvest" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our "lovely" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.

Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended.

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

negative
This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname "The Butcher of Plainfield". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A lovely librarian, played by Playboy model Kristine DeBell, falls asleep and dreams herself into a strange world filled with extremely uninhibited people These people love to sing and dance and fool around Alice has a series of sensual adventures among these characters 

The film was originally shot as a poem to eroticism with few explicit sex scenes, which were eventually cut from its theatrical release Videocassette versions, however, have had some of the original erotic encounters joined at the end with them 

For an extremely low-budget picture, the producers of this film did an extremely good job The cinematography is full of life and energy, the dances and numbers quite professional, and the acting lovable Without a doubt, it is one of the best adult fairy tales around
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.

The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.

The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.

So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ron Howard and his "editors" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was "rich", "mysterious", "moving" and highly cinematic in its approach! 

What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called "Angels & Daemons"! 

I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!

I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for "this" film.

I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

It'll soon be 10 yrs since this movie was released....still makes me laugh.... If u enjoy this film, try the new Hera Pheri....t'is as hilarious. And my favourite bit of the film must be when Salman realises that he has no bullets left in his gun while he has the upper hand and has everyone at gun point...and he actually says it out loud!!! U just wanna bash him....but u know u can only do that if u stop laughing!!!! Fantastic film.... 10/10
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.

Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.

The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. 

The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.

Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, "I am ACT-ING!" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases. 

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal. 

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.
I absolutely love this film and have seen it many times. I taped it in about 1987 when it was shown on Channel Four but my tape is severely worn now and I would love a new copy of it.I have e-mailed Film Four to ask them to show it again as it has never been available on video and as far as I know hasn't been repeated since the 80's. I have had no reply and it still hasn't been repeated. The performances are superb. The film has everything. Its funny,sad,disturbing,exciting and totally takes you back to school days. It is extremely well paced and grips you from start to end. The scene in the shower room is particularly horrific. I also cannot hear the song Badge by Cream and not think of this film. This film deserves to be seen by a much larger audience as it is superb. Channel Four please show again or release on Video or DVD.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.