cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
"Big Fat Liar" comes as a welcome -- shallow, but welcome -- breath of fresh air after one too many films featuring bathrooms, bodily fluids, pets on acid, gaseous jokes and crotch gags. After all, "See Spot Run," "Max Keeble's Big Move" and "Snow Dogs" had signaled The Degenerative Spiral of Kiddie Movie-making. Worse is the realization that the young audience would later be satiated by the smuttier offerings of "Not Another Teen Movie" and "Slackers." Written by Nickelodeon producers Dan Schneider and Brian Robbins (who coincidentally co-starred on the '80s sitcom "Head of the Class"), the film stars Frankie Muniz as Jason, who's always ready with a good lie to get out of scrapes. (Where's the English paper? Dad choked on a Swedish meatball.) His teacher (Sandra Oh) issues an ultimatum: Turn in the paper by the end of the day or take summer school. Jason whips out a story called "Big Fat Liar" and is struck en route to school by a limousine carrying insensitive Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti). Wolf gives him a ride, but Jason leaves his paper behind. No one will hear the truth this time, and Dad tells him he's lost his trust.

Months later, Jason and best friend Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) see a movie preview for "Big Fat Liar," and head off to Los Angeles to wreak havoc on Wolf's life -- all to get a confession that he stole Jason's paper to make the film. They even gain the sympathy of some of Wolf's abused employees, including his assistant (Amanda Detmer), former chauffeur (Donald Faison), movie star (Jaleel "Urkel" White, playing himself) and stunt coordinator (a much-aged Lee Majors).

Because "Big Fat Liar" is without the edge that his sitcom "Malcolm in the Middle" is known for, Muniz is easy to root for but doesn't have much to work with. Likewise for Bynes, who headlines her own Tracey Ullman-like sketch show on Nickelodeon. All the hamminess is given to Giamatti, whose eyes bulge and cheeks wiggle with every sneering insult.

The film gets snaps just by attempting the high road, and should be enjoyed by its target audience (especially since most of the high jinks occur on the Universal Studios lot). But here's one head-scratcher: The message is that it pays to tell the truth. But didn't we just see Jason getting to his payback by telling white lies throughout the film? Well, at least there's no poop.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

For anyone who cares to know something about the real Diane Arbus, or who values psychological veracity, this film is abysmal. Arbus was a brilliant, talented, restless, and troubled person, but this film depicts her as completely self-involved, and truly bizarre in her taste and judgment. Kidman portrays her as wan and vague, whereas she was someone who knocked people over with her charisma. The totally fictional relationship that is central to the film is quite unbelievable, and Robert Downey is truly annoying in his smirking portrayal of someone who seems to think he's superior to the rest of the world simply because of his affliction. The film depicts this encounter as being the source of Arbus's interest in "freaks," which is a truly banal explanation for the inspiration behind some of the greatest photographs of the 20th century. The mystery to me is why people of some talent and intelligence chose to be involved with this film in any way.
This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.

So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.

All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.

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

negative
Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problemsand the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.

One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to themthey are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocreno redemption there.

It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad "I was dying, and then the famine came" has more content.

The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.

Skip this one.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A bare-faced rip-off of Se7en and not fit to clean its shoes. The word 'predictable' must have invented for just such an occasion as this. Lambert is wooden, as always (his moments of 'emotion' are laughable, as is his accent). The 'climax' is not that at all as we've had so many signals, and by the end we're simply immune to flesh, rotting and otherwise. Altogether a real mess.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is one of the worst Sandra Bullock movie since Speed 2 But not quite that bad. I really lost it with those out of the blue not so "special effect". Guys, If you're an insomniac go with your girl to see this movie. I give it three sleepies!
When I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these "stupid spoof" movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.

Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.

The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.

4/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as that.
Let me begin by saying that I had been eagerly anticipating this film's release for awhile. After finally getting the chance to see it last night, I'm sorry to say that I was incredibly disappointed. It's hard to imagine a film that could make last fall's "Exorcist: The Beginning" look good, but "Dominion" does just that. No wait...it makes it look like a GREAT film. 

Perhaps I got myself too excited about this movie, and that contributed to the let down. After all, the idea that Warner Bros. was releasing two versions of what is essentially the same film within six months of each other was an exciting attraction. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Stellan Skarsgard, and in true fashion he gives a great performance, despite the often ridiculous content of the film. On the other hand, the supporting cast in this film is abysmal. Clara Bellar seems to be capable of only one expression - blank stare, and delivers all of her lines with the same monotonous tone, while Gabrielle Mann's Father Frances is just ridiculous. The effects in this film are laughable at best and the sheer cheesiness of it all is enough to rob the film of any chance of being taken seriously. This movie brought about more stifled giggling than anything else, and with the exception of one really chilling shot that lasted about three-seconds and made my friend cover her eyes and whimper, it neglected to offer anything in the scare department either. I could go into more detail and possibly give away some spoilers, but frankly I'm too exhausted from thinking about how bad this film was to write all the things I'd love to say.

The saddest part about the whole thing is that the basic idea that both versions of the film tried to give...a story about a priest who has lost his faith and then regains it after coming to terms with his troubled past...had huge potential, especially with Skarsgard as leading man. Unfortunately for us, that potential was wasted. Go and see this film only if you're really curious about how it differs from the Harlin version, but don't expect to see a good film or you'll regret wasting your money and two hours of your life. Otherwise, be content with the version first released and move on.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.

It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.

I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I just watched the DVD version of BORN BAD and found it to be tense, gritty and, near the end, too graphic for the faint of heart. Justin Walker (Clueless) and Corey Feldman turn in superior performances. For a low budget film, this picture delivers. The depth of character and clever dialogue are two things not usually seen in a Roger Corman picture. Check it out on DVD!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Yes, I know that this movie is meant as a comedy! And the humor is over the top! But the theme about people getting less intelligent in future time might not be so far fetched! I cannot say that it will happen,but if we don't take proper care of our educational system than this could be a possibility! I have noticed that some schools aren't teaching facts anymore! (Like history,geography,basic stuff). The focus is more on learning practical abilities! The theory behind most subjects may be boring but is essential in understanding how things work! In the movie there is this ridiculous example of people growing crops with Gatorade in stead of water! Well,we can laugh about it! But if you never been taught that water contains minerals necessary for plants to grow so how would you know! To me this is a scary notion! So now you understand why this subject isn't funny anymore! It could be that Mike Judge is making fun but at the same time is warning people for a real disaster if education doesn't improve fast! Am I taking this movie too seriously! Yes of course! To each his own fun! I loved Mike Judge's work (Beavis and Butthead and Office space)! In these he was able to be critical and funny at the same time! In "Idiocracy" I missed this! Most of the events are too absurd and as I said earlier very scary! I do think if you are in the mood you will like this movie!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Latcho Drom is a cinematic survey of Gypsy music from several countries. It is touching, sad and joyous. Most of the segments appear to be completely unstaged, unrehearsed. The music, ranging from the sensual flamenco music of the Spanish Gypsies, to the melancholy music of the Central European Gypsies, is exquisite. If you love Gypsy music, you'll find Latcho Drom absolutely beautiful.
What's an example of a movie review?

Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.

Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog. 

I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape. 

I'm not even going to talk about the ending...

The best thing about the movie was the music.

That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Save some very early Norris, "Breaker, Breaker" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this "dog". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.

If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.

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

negative
The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a "romance" (yawn) that seems to ramble off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the experience.

Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time - no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have seen. Not to be missed.

Jim

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

positive
I saw this film at our crossroads film festival, and was looking forward to it because it was filmed in mississippi and starred karen black. I was severely disappointed by the clumsy script which never flowed and the apparent lack on the effort of the actors and director to understand anything about the culture they endeavored to portray. How did lee and griffin become such deep friends in five minutes? Which of the two were f***ing the girl under the tree? It was unclear. And, There seems to be some law in hollywood about southern accents, and rarely do you hear anything remotely approaching the everyday sounds of the south., despite the awful, "this must be how they sound, just soften the "r"" approach to dialogue, so many times the actors lapse out of it altogether. Aleksa especially sounded like a new york street tough during "emotional" scenes, and nobody sounded mississippian at all. Walt Goggins' character was supposed to have been from Morgan city, Louisiana yet sounded nothing like that city's blend of new orleans and cajun accents. The other bothersome point seemed to be an urge by the writer to make us all feel that every man must have homosexual urges inside him. Before I start a firestorm here and am accused of homophobia, I've enjoyed many films with gay love themes, notably "punks" "when love comes" and "b monkey". But this seemed to be some man's wish about all young men. Well, Tennessee williams has already covered this ground, and did a far better job of it. So, I wonder, if the coen brothers can get regional accents and culture dead on in films set in Minnesota and in Mississippi, why can't anyone else? What a waste of my time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I hesitated seeing this movie, having really enjoyed the original, 'Mostly Martha'. What a disappointment. Catherine Zeta Jones is a good actress but this wasn't her film. The original had poignant moments, perfectly punctuated with an incredible soundtrack. No reservations felt like it never connected. The food, the characters - nothing felt passionate. In Mostly Martha, the food came alive- every scene was filmed in such a way you could taste it with your eyes - the smells, the textures. The food in 'No Reservations' was in the background - rarely did we get a closeup of the preparation; the characters were not real enough to carry the movie without it. It was hard finishing the movie - many of the scenes felt awkward. See the original - it's a truly enjoyable movie; the soundtrack incredible.
I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.

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

negative
Ok, I will make this review short and to the point for those people whose mental capacity is perfect for watching this movie. Everybody knows of Motion Picture Association of America's ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. For the purposes of this movie, I think the MPA should create a new rating standard: IQ-20.

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

negative
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.

In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.

First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.

Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.

How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
...when this movie was on.

What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.

I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.

As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? " Entirely contrived " is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .

To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

If you want to see a Horror Film which is Horrible and in very bad taste, this is definitely the film to view. This films starts out with two young teenagers getting wild ideas about going into a chat room and going out on blind dates, and quite possibly they will wind up like a little lamb to the slaughter house. Plenty of blood, gore, nudity, handcuffs and all kinds of blood draining hooks and things you will never dream a person is capable of performing on men and women. If you like piercing, well this kind of piercing deals with heavy heavy hooks and plenty of tattoo's; besides, lots of needles and thread to seal up things on the human body. I really hope that this film does not give some sick person in this world, the idea to act out these horrors in real LIFE.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his/her life.

Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station. 

In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.

This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 8/10.
I use IMDB very much. Mainly reading comments of other people about movies I´ve or not seen. I´ve thought it was time to write a few words about this movie that changed my life, and the way I look a movie. I think I have seen it at least a dozen times since autumn 94, when I saw it in the theatre for the first time.

I feel Kieslowski is one of the best directors of all time. And I think this is his best one. It was his last one. I was very sad the day I knew he has died, because sure we lost the chance to get something more from him.

RED is just the best Kieslowski + incredibile performance by Trintignant & Jacob + cinematography by Sobocinski. If you haven´t seen it LOOK FOR it!!! If you have, just come back to it!!

Red: just a masterpiece. please, forgive my poor English!, reader
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is an outstanding criminal thriller, and with a great cast too. Spanish language cinema's best and most popular actors of the past couple of decades, Victoria Abril and Federico Luppi, team up in one of the better Spanish language crime thrillers of 2004-5.

The film begins by focusing on thirty something Ernesto (Ernesto Alterio), an elegant, attractive and slick thief who learned from childhood friend Gitano, and more recently from Manco, an old seasoned swindler. Manco introduces Ernesto to Federico (Federico Luppi), an also elegant, but more astute & experienced methodical thief - the best in his class.

Federico's only known weakness is Pilar (Victoria Abril), his former mistress and partner. She suddenly appears and proposes a fabulous rip-off scheme to her former lover, a crime in grand scale, which will eventually require the help of Ernesto, Manco and Gitano, among others.

The script is full of twists and surprising reversals, particularly towards the end of the film. One criticism about the film I've heard a lot is that there are too many plot twists towards the end, but I disagree. The film captivates the audience so much that all the unexpected events are not too much to follow. In fact, these are what make the film outstanding. I highly recommend it.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.
If your a child of the 80's and have not seen this movie you have failed to be a true child of the 80's. How can you not love those great chipmunks (don't forget about the chippettes), lines, and songs. Years later i can still sing every word to every song. The story line is great and much better then the films for kids today. It's just pure fun and worth the rent, even if your all grown up.

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

positive
A wonderful Christmas story on the moving theme of "Susie Homemaker finds her Inner Amazon." No, I'm serious! Geena Davis's amnesia starts to improve when she is knocked on the head. From this familiar beginning, we move in an unexpected direction. Good pace, good action, fun story, lots of explosions and mayhem.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
wow...I just watched this movie...American people have this stereotypical view towards Hindi films such as, ALL Indian films have dances, songs and a love story....Its pathetic how far away from the truth that is. This film simply exposes the stereotypical western view of Hindi films. Horrible acting, horrible direction, horrible cinematography. And all this by a Hollywood director. Most Indian films today are much more content driven, realistic, touching and meaningful than this piece of crap. Indian cinema (not just Hindi) also cover a variety of different subjects. Just like most other Hollywood films these days, this shows a very stereotypical view of of another country, where truth is thrown out the window. This is a highly NOT recommended movie. Instead watch good Hindi films like black Friday, eklavya, omkara, khakee, awarapan, gangster, don, zakhm, dor, sholay, mother India, lagaan...Those films are what real Indian cinema are all about.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ham-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.

Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's "Real Genius", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.

Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself.

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

negative
Barry Champlain is a radio phone-in talk-show host in Dallas, whose no-holds-barred ideas on a plethora of social issues disturb and offend many of his callers and listeners. Is Barry a media messiah in search of truth, or a social misfit out to assault his audience ?

This is an intense, provocative character piece about a man with almost no redeeming features who at the same time seems to be onto some really profound philosophy. Though co-written and directed by Stone, this is really Bogosian's piece all the way and he gives an astonishingly hard-edged and penetrating performance from which there is no escape. Barry is at times one of the most loathsome characters imaginable, spewing bilious misanthropy at everyone around him, particularly those who care about him. But at the same time he is also strangely empathetic, hypnotic, sage, even lovable. Bogosian's hawkish features burn into the frame, with his green eyes constantly darting around as if permanently seeking an answer to some riddle. The movie is essentially an angry, self-righteous rant against all the bigotry, injustice and banality in the world, culminating in a wild three-and-a-half-minute rotating single shot of Barry delivering the ultimate I-hate-everything speech, but boy does it pack a punch. The support cast are great, particularly Greene as the ex-wife and Baldwin as the boss. Robert Richardson's keen photography manages to keep the single radio studio set looking interesting and there's a tense score by Stewart Copeland, with a moving coda featuring that endearing phone-music piece, Telephone And Rubber Band by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra. If you're unfamiliar with Bogosian, check out his amazing talent in this flick - like his contemporaries, Bill Hicks and Denis Leary, he's someone who rarely appears in the mainstream media, purely because his writing is so out there. I find Stone's movies variable; I don't much care for his big successes, but when he is more ordered and objective, as with this (or Salvador and Nixon), he is much more incisive and arresting. A great primal scream of a picture, based on a play by Bogosian, inspired by the true story of Alan Berg, a Denver radio talk show host who was murdered by neo-Nazis in 1984.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Random Hearts snuck up on me. Criticized for the implausibility of a) the premise and b) the pairing of an IA cop and a Congresswoman, as well as for its slowness, the film felt just fine to me , and even ended up being surprisingly absorbing. I found my interest engaged as the film cut back and forth between Ford's and Thomas's lives as they first found out about, and dealt in very different ways in very different environments with, their spouses' deaths and the subsequent revelation that they were involved with other people. It could happen; two people's philandering spouses could be on the same plane, the plane could go down, the survivors could be brought together by the aftermath. So what if it's improbable? Improbable is not the same as far-fetched. So..what if it did happen? Why not speculate? 

Ford's and Thomas's performances are believable and nuanced. Instead of finding their coupling implausible (opposite sides of the tracks--give me a break) I felt it driven by a grief and betrayal neither party knew how to deal with. The script does not bring them together too soon or too easily, and the end of the film does not resolve their relationship conventionally, either. Where I find it unsatisfying is when the dialogue brings up interesting wrinkles in or insights into the ramifications of the situation, personal and professional, but never seems to pursue any of them very far. And if you make the mistake of thinking about it too hard, Harrison Ford does seem about 10 years too old for the part.

For five and a half bucks at Wal-Mart, with full length director commentary and behind-the-scenes featurette, the DVD is well worth owning. I don't think I would pay $20 for it on a bet, but my wife might. OK, ten...

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

positive
I saw this film back in the early 70's and I was mesmerised by Judy Geeson. For me it captured the clandestine nature of Rod Steigers irrepressible obsession with the young and extremely sexy hitch hiker, played by Geeson.

You couldn't help feel a little sorry for the wife, played brilliantly by Claire Bloom. I was really disappointed to see that the original cut may have been lost and there is little chance of it being released on DVD.

I defy anyone who saw the film, and it's strong message not to be equally absorbed by the three main character performances, and I would have loved to have seen it again, if nothing else for a purely nostalgic reason.

Going back in time, some 35 years.

A real classic.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.

Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The "powers that be" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.

Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.

While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.

I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.

Don't waste your time on this turkey.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This film centered on a young lady who makes prayers to help her family and friends when they encounter difficulties in life. It made me think of other movies like the "Song of Bernadette" and "Francis of Assisi" and has a very strong Catholic faith influence in the film. Ann Blyth is very charming as first, the Catholic school student and then later as a young woman who buys a statue of Saint Anne (which is the name of the street that I live on, by the way) and makes many prayers for the saint's intercession whenever problems come up in her life. Frances Bavier (Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith show) and Edmund Gwenn (from Miracle on 34th Street) play relatives of her. A local priest of mine used to say that my sister resembled Ann Blyth and the both of them have the same first and middle names. A nice good family film that came from an era when life was a bit more simpler.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale *
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative