cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.

The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.

I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.

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

negative
I honestly have to say that A CAT IN THE BRAIN is one of the most fun and unintentionally hilarious films I've ever seen. This film is packed with stupid dialog, ridiculous scenes, and a self-involving plot, starring legendary horror director Lucio Fulci himself.

The threadbare story-line is about an aging director (Fulci, who is also named Lucio Fulci in the film...)who is starting to go nuts and hallucinate because of all the vicious things he's put down in film over the past many years. He goes to a shrink who hypnotizes Fulci, and tells him that he will believe himself to be a killer, but that the shrink will actually be the one doing the killing. The rest of the film is made up of shots from the "film" that Fulci is directing during all this action, scenes of the shrink killing people all-the-while grinning like a f!cking moron, and some of Fulci's hallucination sequences. Oh, and a few tits thrown in for good measure as well...

A CAT IN THE BRAIN is completely over-top-and ridiculous in every sense. The gore is classic Fulci - nasty and strong with some really decent scenes. The chainsaw sectioning of a female corpse is pretty cool, as is the chainsaw beheading of a small boy. Lots of stabbings, gougings and other cool kill-scenes make this one a pretty non-stop bloodbath. The ridiculous dialog (LICK IT!!!!LICK IT!!!), as well as some of the insanely goofy scenes (the Nazi orgy, the opera singing slap-fest and the running down of an innocent hippy come easily to mind...) make this one fun as hell. Not nearly as dark as some of Fulci's other films - CAT is more of a self-indulgent horror/comedy that if it wasn't meant to be funny, is actually kind of sad. I say to grab a fifth of cheap bourbon and settle in to this one. I watched CAT with a few friends and we laughed the entire time. THIS is the feel-good movie of the summer...Recommended 8/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
AVP2 is an awful movie. The dialogue was pointless, the acting was pathetic, it had virtually no story line and you can't really tell what the hell is going on half the time due to the continuity errors and plot holes.

BUT! You will love it anyway. Because it pushes the boundaries on gore, violence, death, destruction and chaos. They EVEN kill children, newborns and unborn babies in this movie. You will be sitting there thinking "Oh my God, that is disgusting" And they surprise you by killing the 'sexy chick who always makes it out alive' when the predator and aliens are fighting in the hospital.

It's like the movie industry has said "We know what we did in the first Alien Vs. Predator movie was was bad, so we're doing it again but this time we're getting help from psychopaths with vivid imaginations" It's predicable, moronic and down right pointless....but you will be thinking about it for a while after you see it.

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

negative
In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....

But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.

Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

(***Minor spoilers***)

If there's something in the world of silent clowns that puzzles me, it is that Charley Chase never got his well deserved "break through" in the movies. Oh well, maybe it isn't that strange, really, inasmuch as he never starred in any full-length features. But when I think of it, such an explanation makes it all only more mysterious -- because why the heck didn't Chase get any offers to play the leading lead in features? One explanation is that his character, no matter how amusing, was simply too realistic to suit a longer story; without the burlesque elements that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon and other comedians possessed, it can be assumed that the comedy he made and which worked so well for twenty minutes would get repetitive after a few more reels. I don't quite buy this, though, as Chase's gag construction is magnificent and could, I believe, at its best maintain the interest of viewers alone for a longer period; at least I am tempted to think so when MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE runs the show.

Mr. Moose isn't extraordinary handsome, and Mrs. Moose is hardly a "classic beauty;" he possesses the truly biggest front teeth of any human being on the planet, and she has a remarkably large nose. Both of them takes plastic surgery without the other's knowledge, and when they meet by accident just a little later, he doesn't recognize his wife and she doesn't recognize her husband. A number of hilarious misunderstandings begin, with many clever gags all the way through. I don't think I'll reveal anything further, to make the viewing more enjoyable for you. Because if you're a fan of silent comedies, or even if you aren't, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE offers so many memorable moments within such a short time that I would look upon it as a downright shame not to see it; silly indeed, but no less extremely funny.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I missed the full four hour version when it was originally released in theaters because it played one week. I had to settle for seeing the shorter two and a half hour version a year or so later and was left stunned by what I saw. I left the theater thinking I had witnessed a masterpiece and wondering what the full version was like.

The full version is mostly good but it has sequences that are so incredibly dull that the whole movie is pulled down and almost sinks beneath the waves.

The problem is entirely in the editing which should be labeled as the final word on excess. There are times when things go on and on and on and nothing happens. Shots of people in a city that go on much too long with no purpose in the narrative. We get beautiful vistas and visions of such beauty that they bring tears to your eyes but they are used too frequently as a place holder instead of as punctuation or to set a place. Much of the longer version seems to be on screen simply because it looked good.

I've attempted to actually sit down and watch Heavens Gate with out resorting to the Fast Forward button but somewhere along the way I find I can't stand it any more.

I wish MGM would take pity on us and release the shorter version to DVD as well as the huge dinosaur. Perhaps as a two pack so that we could see which is the better version, and whether Cimino was mad or not.

And while they were at it why not include the once rumored Johnson County War edit that ran 90 minutes. Supposedly United Artists tinkered with a further cut in the hopes of getting some of their money back. Whether it was ever done or still exists is up in the air, but it would be interesting to see.
Write a positive movie review.

For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest "After the Funeral" for the following reasons.

I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in "the journey of life." And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.

Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.

Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.

Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.

His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his "Penguin" days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin "quack" here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.

I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.

The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.

However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying "Fire Delta Beam!", whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.
This is an awful movie from just about every point of view. Since much has been already pointed out in previous reviews, let me just focus on "Serbs" and "Delta Force" guys in this movie.

1) The uniforms that "Serbs" wear are not Serbian. And helmets are wrong, too.

2) The actors who play "Serbs" are not speaking Serbian, not even a language close to Serbian, unlike in "Behind enemy lines" where the Czech actors did their best to speak the language and add at least a bit of credibility to the movie.

3) The gray-bearded "Serbian general" looks and acts like a moron, firing his gun whenever US soldiers call his name: 

- US soldier: "Gravic! Give up!"

- Gray-bearded moronic general: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: "Gravic! Come out!"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: "Gravic! You're surrounded"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- Prop guy: "Excuse me, Mr. gray-bearded moronic general, see, we're out of blanks and I sent the boy to buy some more, but he's not back yet..."

- GBMG: (click)

4) Since when does the Army issue AK47s to the Delta Force? I guess they couldn't find enough working M4s in Bulgaria, but there were plenty of old AK47s and practice blanks ;) Maybe they should have went for some airsofts, they are cheaper and wouldn't have hurt the credibility of the movie anyway...

5) In the scene where a DF officer is hanging on a rope while talking to a rocket scientist, he is holding his finger on the trigger all the time. No sane person with any weapons training or just plain common sense would ever do that. I guess the actor figured that his coolness level increases the longer he holds the gun that way. 

This movie is such an insult to common sense..
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It's true that this is not realistic story, but romantic comedy is not a genre that I look to for realism. What counts is that the characters are likeable and, as needed, sexy. Shalom is beautiful and relaxed and Jake Weber is handsome in an offhand kind of way. They have enough chemistry to make the story believable in the area that counts, sexual attraction. I would love to see either of them in another movie. And yes, the clown is pretty cute too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.

The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.

The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.

Where was Smithee?
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This cheap, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.

I wasn't impressed by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite boring at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things get slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you.

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

negative
I enjoy the National Anthem. I enjoy the National Anthem if for nothing else then, just before the Midnight News, I imagine I'm playing the cymbals in the band. Not as easy as you may think! One, two, three, four; One, two three, four; but then what? So I have sympathy with the practising bass drum player in Roy Andersson's wonderful film, patiently waiting for his cue listening to a very 70s cassette player.

The 70s motif seems to continue throughout, with some classic, soulless furniture. Moreover, every scene has an eerie jade wash which emphasises the minute nuances of the subtlest of acting.

Which brings me to Jessika Lundberg's outstanding purple boots. Boots which otherwise would have inspired a Silk Cult advertising campaign.

But then the difficult bit. Someone asked me what it was about. Well there is a scene where the opening line as "I don't have that length in green" Brilliant. Straight out of a Gary Larson carton.

I can't say what it's about. Go see yourself.

Ron Plasma

Hmm. Larson! Sounds Swedish

(Viewed 15Apr08)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go "Uh ha hah!" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on. 

The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

with that, carry the same dark weaknesses we all unfortunately possess: lying, deception, laziness, the list goes on.

However, as an American, I was shocked to see that corruption and racism exist in today's police force as is reflected with the Duval County Sheriff Department's horrible detective and police work with the murder of a white female tourist and a 15-year old accused black youth. I shook my head in shame that detectives were protected from their abusive work while a young man's LIFE hung in the crooked balance of justice.

However, there is also a story of hope with our judicial system and how poorly-paid public defenders stuck by their guns (irony intended) and forced the truth from the detectives. I wanted to fly down to Florida and tell anybody with influence what a great public defender team they have in Duval County; those lawyers care about the "little" man and, most importantly, for justice.

The other story line is about faith and family. Praises to the accused's family and their strong Christian (submit any dedicated religion) beliefs and wonderful family values. I hope they win their lawsuit against the Duval County Sheriff's Department.

Bravo for justice!!! Bravo for the little guy!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.

But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.
Write a positive movie review.

If I was only allowed to watch one program in my entire life, I would definitely have to pick "The Chaser's War on Everything". Of all the satirical shows that have been on Australian television, I found "Chaser" to be the funniest of all. It is just so Amazing, the boys aren't afraid to do anything.

Whether it's dress up as Hitler to get into a Polish Club, or push a MASSIVE ball of string around Melbourne to try out the tourism ad's or rock up to the Coke factory naked in a bath with $2.40 to buy some water. The Chaser boys will go there.

In agreement with the comments above (and/or below) "The Chaser's War on Everything" is more popular than their previous program "CNNNN". But CNNNN was just as funny. Some unforgettable moments from that show... Clean up Cambodia!!! Classic.

So anyway to stop me from Ranting further, I STRONGLY advise you to at least give Chaser a chance, you'll more than likely find it HILARIOUS!!!!
Write a negative movie review.

In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).

The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into "the butterfly effect" but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.

The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.

Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4/10
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his "image". I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable
This has got to be the funniest movie I have seen in forever. Chritopher Guest is truly talented. He has a gift for humor. I almost died laughing. Actually, when I saw this in theaters, I considered walking out because the movie was so dumb. But it is dumb in a good way. It is funny-dumb. And this is a really good combination. You will be laughing from start to end.

This mockumentary style film follows an array of characters all competing at the Kennel Club Dog Show. The cast includes Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, John Michael Higgens, Michael McKean, Larry Miller, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge and tons more. 

This is a truly funny movie that will have everyone laughing. Someone born without a personality would laugh at this film. It is presented in widescreen to give the image that you are viewing an actual documentary and that is probably what adds to the hilarity. BEST IN SHOW: 5/5.

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

positive
Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this (video 2000) years ago and would love to see it on DVD. A good film, but I would have loved it even more if it had included the legacy of The Beatles and The Hollies etc.

I also don't know exactly how true the story is - were some changes made to dramatize the story? 

I was only 3 when Buddy crashed, and didn't wake up to his music until the late 70's. Much later I found out our family moved into our new house on - yes, February 3rd, 1959.

Well ehelhell little things you say and do... His songs will always be remembered - always...

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

positive
I think this is a great, classic monster film for the family. The mole, what a machine! The tall creature with the beak, the flying green lizards, Ranthorincus/mayas or whatever they are and the ape men things the speak telepathically with them. The battle of the men in rubber suits fighting for a doll for breakfast umm! yummy! Class, what else can I say? How would they make a 2002 remake of this one?

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

positive
On a flight back from London, I watched She's the Man; apparently Air Canada has a crap movie policy. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a review of this movie. Amanda Bynes plays a girl who loves soccer so much that she pretends to be her twin brother to get on a team at a boarding school across town. Even if you check your mind at the door (on a 6 hour flight you have to), the story is implausible and ridiculous. There are some moments of humor, mostly from comedian David Cross as the principle, but the intricate love polygon doesn't really inspire emotion, although is is cleverly mixed (with the caveat of mindless plausibility). The ending is just as ridiculously mindless as the rest. I guess if I was a 12-year-old girl, I might have really enjoyed this one.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well.

What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other.

And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this is a very rare thing in American films.

I have shown this movie to many people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK.

This is one of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no lesson here you need to find one yourself.

Everyone praises the acting, directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not repeat it all again.

So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you dare to be challenged!
What's an example of a movie review?

When it was announced the "King of Pop" was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say "what's the problem?" The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.

I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...

hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.

It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.

The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.

An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.
What's an example of a movie review?

If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy "You Are Alone". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.

Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.

Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.

As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie.
Towards the end of his career Jack Arnold, a very efficient director who gave us such classic 50's creature features as "It Came from Outer Space," "The Creature from the Black Lagoon," and "Tarantula," teamed up with former football star turned top 70's blaxploitation film headliner Fred "the Hammer" Williamson for a pair of movies, producing the amiable, if unremarkable Western "The Black Bounty Hunter" and this refreshingly breezy, clever and highly entertaining 70's black action variant on your standard 40's film noir down-at-the-heels private detective yarn.

Williamson displays a charming combination of dry, self-deprecating humor and relaxed, easygoing self-confidence as Shep Stone, a cheap, affable, and forever in debt erstwhile Los Angeles cop turned private investigator. Stone's so hard-up for cash that he uses a bar as his business office and just barely makes ends meet doing penny-ante low-paying minor cases that the police don't want to bother with. While pounding the pavement for one of these deceptively simple gigs (Stone's trying to find some guy's runaway teenage daughter who's hiding somewhere in Hollywood), Stone finds himself elbow deep in a complex, dangerous, seemingly bottomless criminal plot which includes a flipped-out Jesus freak religious cult, assorted deadhead hippie dopers, a sordid porno ring, a priceless missing gold-tipped cane that belonged to a legendary silent movie star, a nefarious underground drug smuggling operation, and an ever-growing number of fresh corpses.

While lacking the wickedly playful, mischievous ingenuity of Robert Altman's masterful "The Long Goodbye" or the haunting, unremitting pessimism of Arthur Penn's beautifully bleak "Night Moves," "Black Eye" nonetheless still makes the grade as a highly successful hip'n'flip 70's spin on 40's mystery suspense thrillers. Arnold's capable direction keeps the pace moving at a nice, steady clip, punctuated with sporadic exciting mano-a-mano bare knuckle fight scenes and excellent use of various colorfully seedy L.A. locations (the rundown abandoned amusement park at the film's conclusion is especially effective). The script by Mark Haggard and Jim Martin supplies a goodly amount of fairly complicated and often genuinely surprising plot twists. And the expected array of quirky, rough-around-the-edges secondary characters are an interesting oddball bunch, with particularly notable turns by Rosemary Forsyth as an alluring, powerful lesbian model agency owner (Forsyth has the picture's best line, boasting to Stone when she first meets him, "I'm a whole lot of woman"), Teresa Graves of "Get Christie Love" TV show fame as Stone's loyal bisexual girlfriend (the film's casual, nonjudgmental depiction of both Foryth's unconventional femme fatale and Graves' equally atypical gal Friday is one of its strongest assets), and Bret Morrison, who did the voice of radio's "The Shadow" in the 40's, as a smugly sleazy porno filmmaker. All in all, it's a modest, yet surefire winner.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I have no idea why people are so crazy about the show. It is so boring. The jokes are not even close to what we usually say funny. It's like, Alex say something that is not funny nor interesting and then suddenly there's a laughing sound background. My friend and I just looked at each other with blank look as if we asked each other, "What's so funny?!!". Seriously, every time we watched that show, you wouldn't hear any laughing or coughing. Just a blank look. So we stop watching it. I am personally a fan of sitcoms, so I tried to watch the show. But the show us such a disappointment. This show might be one of the worst comedy sitcom ever...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it.

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

positive
The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).

The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.

I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).

All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.

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

negative
There are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip Glass Soundtrack.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative