cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Ordinarily, I love these "Stranger Within" thrillers. Some good examples are "Fatal Attraction," "Single White Female," and "Audition." Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" is one of the latter.

The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...

This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.

The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.

Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.

Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin.

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

negative
It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the "Fifth Missile" to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled "The Naked Time", not the "Naked Now". The "Naked Now" refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the "Naked Time" original series one.

Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with "Crimson Tide", "The Day After", "By Dawn's Early Light", "The Hunt For Red October", "Ice Station Zebra", and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.
... when we all know, no one does it like the BBC.

Being an avid fan of this sort of Sunday night watching, i was quite looking forward to this. How disappointed was I! In the first thirty seconds I didn't think it was looking promising and after two minutes i was finding it hard to watch.

However me and my friends persisted only to find bad acting and a complete misunderstanding of half of the characters. The plot was hurried to the extreme and the make up and costumes gaudy and very 21st century in a 'bbc robin hood' style. This modern style may have been able to be placed within sharp camera angles and visually sumptuous cinematography but unfortunately we got neither. The direction felt decidedly sloppy for both acting and shot choice.

After 30 mins we couldn't bare to watch it and went out and rented 'The Prestige'(which is very good btw) Maybe it is unfair that I judge this as I have watched so little of this, but rarely have I felt so compelled to warn people not to watch something! However, me and my friends did think that the house and parasols were pretty- but thats as good as it gets.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***
Determine the sentiment:

"Let me ask you one more question" Ha ! what a great soon .. this movie was brilliant fantastic acting, great script. The only reason no-one noticed it was because of the low budget everyone will agree with me that its a cult just like "Donnie Brasco" it shows a young Joe Pesci once again as a mobster, this film is up their with the cults. its got some sopranos and some goodfellas chase got his idea for the sopranos when he watched this and Scorsese found Joe Pesci while watching it, that proves it must be a great am i right or am i wrong 'eh ?. I've got to admit they showed one brilliant scene where they were throwing peanuts at a camp piano player "Stop with the friggen peanuts".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend.

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

positive
***************************MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**************************

We Dive at Dawn is an English made movie with John Mills in the lead role. The second time I watched the DVD version was on a big screen TV and I must say the movie is better than I thought the first time I saw it on the samll screen. May be it was the big screen viewing that helped?

I still say the first few segments of the movie are muddled, but once the submarine leaves the dock and begins its mission, the movie takes off too! The search for the German battleship named the Brandenburg and the adventures which went along with it were absorbing and the detail shown in the movie are interesting!

I'm increasing my rating to 7/10. If you enjoy WW II films, I think you'll find this one interesting once the submarine gets underway. Some of the men on the sub have quite a sense of humor, too!

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

positive
This is a "revised" Riverdance presentation, staged at Radio City Music hall in New York City. Of the three Irish "dance" musicals that I watched during the mid to late '90s (which includes the first "Riverdance" and "Lord of the Dance") I liked this one the best.

I thought it was better than the original, held in Dublin, Ireland, because it adds segments that are mostly good, it has a more varied and colorful stage setting and it eliminated apiece for two from that original that wasn't good to begin with. This is just a very solid show with few weak spots. To be certain, there are some songs/dances that are just "fair" but none that are poor, which is amazing considering there are 20 numbers in all.

The cast is similar to the first Riverdance with the main exception of Colin Dunne replacing Michael Flatley as the featured dancer. Both are extremely talented. The major difference might be in their looks with Dunne a little, goateed black-haired guy while Flatley is the clean-shaven blond. I prefer Dunne because Flatley's ego is so big he gets annoying at times. The female lead, Jean Butler, thankfully, is still there and is great to watch: what graceful beauty and talent! Butler and the rest of these women have the greatest legs I've seen on dancers. I also enjoyed the dancing of Maria Pages, a Spanish flamenco performer, and two guys: Daniel B. Wooten and Ivan Thomas. One number - with those two pairing off against Dunne and two other dancers -0 is called "Trading Taps" and is terrific fun to watch, maybe the highlight of the whole show. I have no complaints about violinist Eileen Ivers, either.

The "fast" Irish songs here appealed to me the most. I appreciated the audience not getting in the way of the performance either with shrieks and screams like the women do in the "Lord Of The Dance" video.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called "realistic" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.
Determine the sentiment:

This film is without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to "non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old "lose two hours of your life" kind of feeling.

The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole "historical accuracy" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.

The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic "dramatic" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about? 

Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice, 

"WASH ME." 

And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. "Wash me" WTF? That's hilarious.

And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.

So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.

And I believed him.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.

If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.

No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!
With "Batman Returns", Tim Burton succumbed to an important priority in American cinema: giving a sequel to a blockbuster. Three years after the most successful movie of the year, "Batman" (1989), here comes the hero of Gotham City again for the pleasure of many spectators. Like its predecessor, "Batman Returns" enjoyed an enormous commercial success. Tim Burton made Batman come back once again because it is to believe that the victory of the latter on his enemy the Joker did little to improve the image of Gotham City. Indeed, violence and corruption still exist and here, the second word is epitomized by Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and the penguin (Danny De Vito). These two crooks who are eager to take control of Gotham City are going to make life difficult for Batman. His task will be more difficult with the apparition of Catwoman... 

Tim Burton still delivered much work on the scenery and it seems that he tried to correct the faults of the first movie. It means that the director gave way to fight sequences which are better mastered than in the first Batman. But he didn't neglect the psychology of his main characters for all that. If in the movie of 1989, Burton had focused on Bruce Wayne/Batman's psychology, here, it's the penguin that obviously interested him. The director attempted to make of him, very well acted by De Vito an ambiguous character. On one hand, he's full of bad intentions (previously quoted) but on the other hand, he's searching for his past and would like to be considered as a real man.

"Batman Returns" also appears as crazier than its predecessor, especially with the cast. I think of Michèle Pfeiffer who offers a daring and powerful performance as Catwoman. Besides, at the time when I'm writing this review, it makes me remember that a new version of Catwoman is currently at the cinema. But given the bad reviews (3 out of 10 on IMDb!), it is sure that her performer Halle Berry must pale into insignificance beside Pfeiffer.

Ultimately, this film is one of the best sequels of 1992 and it enables to develop Tim Burton's peculiar style. We also still find his taste for the strange and the Gothic. Concerning Batman's other adaptations for the screen, you can skip them. "Batman Forever" (1995) and "Batman and Robin" (1997) are no good. I heard that Christopher Nolan was shooting the beginning of the Batman story and it was to be released next year. Will it match Tim Burton's works?
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.

The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.

There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.

The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.

All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.

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

negative
Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.

Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his "secret" to her! Riiiight!

He then "gifts" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.

One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark "child in a grown-up's body" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.

Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.

There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.

The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online "friends" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.

I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called "friends" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!

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

negative
Rare and auspicious are the moments in film-making when greatness stands as a defining monument for the rest of the industry to measure themselves against and for us to immerse in that glorious moment.

Some stories transcend their time and aspire to the lofty reaches of a classic and the stuff of legends. Throw in the refined skills of an ensemble cast of thespians who are at the very top of their game.

"Where has all the originality gone?" It is here, as this story and it's cast sashay through a plot and story that will not only educate but also entertain even the most seasoned of Shakespearean/action/love story connoisseurs.

I cannot begin to imagine where the writers dreamed up this extraordinary tale. Where do geniuses get this kind of inspiration? I now have hope for mankind, knowing that this kind of talent still exists gives me hope that we will make it to the stars and beyond, perhaps to the very gates of heaven.

I have, like others before me, dreamed of greatness. Though I did not write this movie I did see it and because of this movie's noble greatness, I feel as if I have been elevated to a higher level of being, a higher level of spiritual wholeness.

It is no wonder this kind of glory eludes most of us. What would become of our world if we all could attain this level of magnificence? We would probably be consumed in a white fire of super-nova glory as we evolve into trans-dimensional spiritual beings capable of omnipotent creative power.

The most important thing to know, with all your heart and the very essence of your being, is that "Tomcats" is nothing like what I have been talking about. "Tomcats" is the antithesis of all I mentioned. It could very well destroy our world. For as some reviewers rate a movie on a star system, i.e. 1 through 5 stars, or even zero stars, I'm going to rate "Tomcats" a black hole.

I am willing to donate money to a cause that will put a stop to these kinds of atrocities that, as of late, seem to be running amuck at box offices. I'm not even adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. It must stop. How much more of this can we take before aliens from outer space come down here and blow up our planet because we have so many stupid, crass, vulgar, unimaginative, and degrading movies spewing out of Hollywood? I'm not even going to dignify this movie by mentioning anyone's name that starred or produced it. I'm not even going to waste my time describing the story, since we've seen it a ba-zillion times, and all of the past versions were at least a ga-zillion times better.

By the way my head nearly imploded during this movie, but with supreme selfless effort and lots-o-luck I survived to warn the public. You have been warned.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.

 Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In Extramarital we see B-actress Traci Lords at her very best. She's all wrapped in horror & suspense here, a type of role that suits her very well.

This mainstream movie lends a lot of its atmosphere from Paul Verhoeven's 'Basic Instinct' (1992), by the way. However, there are differences between the main female characters of Traci Lords ('99) and that of Sharon Stone ('92). For instance, in Extramarital Traci adds some tiny elements from her porn-past. We also shouldn't forget mentioning Extramarital's three main actors. By putting down a convincing performance, each of them greatly contributes to the overall quality of this movie. 

All this makes Extramarital into a very enjoyable B-movie. Its storyline shows a good build-up, its tense being well-spread from start to finish. This movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, until its unexpected end.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.

My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the magnificently restored Criterion DVD.

Cranes is the very essence of the War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo Bridge with no class consciousness.

Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fiancé enlists and doesn't write or come back.

The fiancé, Boris, dies on the front, and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to "over the top." But that scene will stay with you.

Although the Soviets were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it. The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty kopek).

Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is, of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema, quite advanced considering where and when it was made.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honestyI probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like From Beyond' and Re-Animator' on his résumé. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckersmost of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'
What's an example of a movie review?

A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.

Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.

While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...

Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.

Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...
Warning: This may contain SPOILERS!!

First of all I watch a lot Lifetime movies and realize they are just that....Lifetime movies. Some are great (really), some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately this movie falls into the latter category. It actually started out with some potential....single, divorced hard working mom (who gets out of work at 2:00 AM) cuts a guy off while driving home from work and let's just say he doesn't take it too well. The stalking begins immediately with phone call hang ups and escalates to her home being broken into and completely trashed. So she goes to her mother's for the night and the next morning her mother's car blows up. This seems to be just a pain in the butt for our heroine who deals with it by going underwear and jewelry shopping!!! So the police put her and her son in a local motel for safe keeping and what does Mom do? She goes off to work leaving the kid all alone at night in a strange motel room and tells him to order a PIZZA!!! I couldn't believe it! Then it really gets stupid! And the ending just made me angry because it was so ridiculous and typical. Too bad because it seemed to have possibilities.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society. The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you find in your average cinema.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.

Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.

Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The Last Dinosaur is a film that is meant to be fun and exciting. It succeeds at doing both.

Maston is a big game hunter who hunts big game(go figure). Owning a company he is planning on going on an expedition with a group of people including a photographer named frankie, a Japanese scientist, a guy who works for his company named Chuck, and an African guy who has aided him on many safari's named Bun Ta. The point is to study what is believed to be Tyrannosaurus Rex, dinosaur that killed the last expedition to the area. They will be getting to this prehistoric area taking a drilling vehicle that travels underwater called the Polar Borer. After getting to the area they soon find the Tyrannosaurus, which Maston tries to shoot but his gun gets jammed. Chuck immediately senses that Maston wanted to hunt the dinosaur all along to add it to his collection of "Stuffed Animals". WHile they were away, Tyrannosaurus invades their camp and takes the Polar Borer away from their camp. Upon returning the group realizes that they may be in the area longer than they expected and Maston states that he will kill the Tyrannosaurus.

THe story is great for a science fiction film. Drilling to a prehistoric area is something that seems could really happen. The scenery is beautiful and it looks like a place where dinosaurs could still reside.

Also I liked the characters in this film. Maston is the typical big time hunter who wants to get anything that could be a trophy kill. Also great was Bun Ta, played by Luther Rackley formerly of the NBA, who really looks and acts like an African tracker. Jackie is the typical female who causes problems for the group and seems to not belong in the wilderness. Chuck is the former employee of Maston who has his view of his boss change when he is in the wild with him.

The Tyrannosaurus in this film is one of the best in a film. It stands a little too up-right like Godzilla does and it drags its tail, so it is a guy in a suit. But the suit looks good, especially the head and the tail, and the Tyrannosaurus looks good and very scary. I have seen plenty of other films where dinosaur suits look way worse. Tyrannosaurus in this film sometimes emits a roar sounding like Godzilla's and other times roars like King Kong from "King Kong Escapes" and "King Kong vs Godzilla". SO a great Tyrannosaurus.

There is plenty of action in The Last Dinosaur. Of particular note is a great fight between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. Also a great scene where Bun Ta tries to spear the Tyrannosaurus. There are other great parts that I wont give away. You have to see for yourself.

I recommend this film to everyone. Watch it and you will not be disappointed.
I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie. 

By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)

If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?

Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.

Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo/Brazil
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I don't go into 'high tech' movies expecting them to be 100% accurate on all things computer related. But somehow, even the average 'I have a computer' user is supposed to believe that:

1) A computer professional with a top secret, special data

2) is going to keep the primary copy of said data on a 1.44 floppy

3) and make absolutely NO BACKUP of this special secret data

Even high school students back up their homework for goodness sake.

Also this is the worst represntation of a computer nerd ever. Even though she is super cute we are supposed to believe that she has no friends, neighbors, extended family, or coworkers who can identify her. Even the unabomber had a family that could turn him in.

END SPOILER

These aren't just minor mistakes that had no bearing on the movie - These are the major plot points that fueled the storyline. The characterization was awful, the plot wholly unbeleivable, and if you haven't seen this, don't bother.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.

The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.

On the characters from 2:37, we can find clichés from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful "princess", the clumsy "nerd", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his/her road to maturity.

2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Buddy Holly was a pioneer and victim of the early days of rock 'n' roll. The young singer/songwriter from Lubbock, Texas left his mark on the template of modern music. Inspired by Elvis Presley, Holly would spend a lot of time fighting the system in order to get his rock-a-billy sound recorded. Before his untimely death, he was mixing lush strings with be-bop rhythms. Holly would take his place with Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Ricky Nelson as the voices of teenage angst.

This easy to watch bio is not without flaws. Some situations, events, places and even names were not correct for various reasons. What makes this movie so believable is that Gary Busey did his own singing in the part of Holly. A well produced soundtrack became a multi-million seller.

Busey was nominated for an Oscar. Other stars of note are Don Stroud, Conrad Janis, Charles Martin Smith and Maria Richwine.
There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.

So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end.

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

positive