cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Having seen the movie years ago and been disappointed by its squandered potential, when I heard that it was becoming a TV series, I flatly refused to watch it. My best friend became a rabid fan immediately, and knowing my love for horror movies, could not believe that I wouldn't watch a single episode. I told him that the movie had scarred me for life as far as anything BUFFY was concerned, and he told me to forget that the movie even existed. He insisted that I give two episodes a shot: "Once More With Feeling" and this one.

Both of them are why I am a BUFFY fan today. He was right - I was hooked immediately. I have never seen a show with the guts to dare try an episode that has next to no dialogue, and nothing else could've pulled it off with the panache and the pure creativity of BUFFY. I think X FILES might've gotten away with it if they'd thought of it first, but I'm glad that BUFFY did it instead. 

It is a credit to everyone involved that you are riveted for the entire hour, sometimes hanging onto the edge of your seat. And when it was all over, I craved to know more about every character. So I went out and bought the Season One boxed set. And the rest is history...

I guarantee you that if you've never seen it, either, you'll want to see more if you make this episode your first. 

The only reason I'm not giving it 10 out of 10 is because I'm reserving that score for "Once More..."
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy "Who's On First") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a "Wizard Of Oz" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue ("King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is", which stands for "It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest").He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing.

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

positive
It should be noted that this movie was not "improvised" (as you're probably thinking of it), despite what the title at the end suggests. The movie was heavily scripted and rehearsed - Cassavetes didn't have enough money to support the inevitably high production costs of an "improvisational" sort of movie, even if he had wanted to produce such a thing. The "improvisation" of the movie is contained in the actors' performances, and the emotions that they draw out of the lines.

That said, allow me to say that this is a stunning work that I'm sure I'll come back to again and again. The depths of emotion that Cassavetes is able to draw out of the smallest gestures and interactions is incredible. I have no idea how he was able to direct such amazing performances out of the actors, especially under the conditions he worked. This is truly a magnificent landmark of film that I would recommend to anyone interested in exploring beyond the Hollywood mold.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Badly shot, badly edited, clumsy dialogue, flat characters, unsuccessful adaption of a novel. It doesn't really get much worse. Decent acting and good popcorn saved me for this hour and a half - felt more like three hours - of boredom. Occasional good one-liners.

David is a dim-witted young man, who has never recovered from losing his brother at an early age. He puts his faith in a Chinese philosophy mumbo jumbo video, although that doesn't seem to help him much in real life. David is a member of a debt-collectors gang, where every member has an IQ below sea level. A lacking script, along with uncreative shooting and even worse editing, make what could have been quite funny incidents of failed debt-collecting look like a amateurish homemade reality show.

David rents an apartment from an elementary school teacher, Haraldur, who by dropping a couple of sentences about his own importance convinces David he is dealing with the most dangerous criminal in Iceland. A severely lacking script doesn't offer David anything to base his opinion on. A couple of scenes SHOWING Haraldur doing something that David could have misinterpreted would have done the work. The potentials of film as media, as opposed to the text of the book this film is based on, are not exploited.

At first, David's connection with Haraldur raises his status within the debt-collectors gang, but the prevailing paranoia in the criminal world forces David to show where his loyalty lies.

The plot of the film is fine, but then it is based on the book. This could have been a much better film. A good screenwriter could have made something of this material. Sadly, that is not the case.

The acting is generally good. Pétur Jóhann is excellent and credible as David. Eggert Þorleifsson doesn't get much to work with, but does his best with what little material he has. Ingvar Sigurðsson and Michael Imperioli (in a tiny role) manage alright.

Overall opinion: What could have been quite a funny and entertaining film about a dim-witted anti-hero in a debt-collectors gang, becomes a boring, badly-crafted film made after a poor manuscript. Staring at your toes for an hour and a half would be more enjoyable.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Hope the summary line won't irritate you that much (it's a little homage to the Chappelle Show/Charlie Murphy, but also to the character Daywalker). But I'll try to put all the things I liked about the movie in one paragraph and everything I didn't like in another paragraph, so it will be easier to read! 

Let's start with the good things! The quote "strong bloody violence" (which is used by rating boards, to describe the content of a movie, does fit here very well. This is not a movie for kids! Or for the faint of hearted! It has Blade as a central character (Wesley Snipes is phenomenal) and a crazy enough story thread to hold/justify the action scenes! The original idea is also very engaging and intelligent. The action scenes are great here too.

OK over to the things I didn't like. The overall story is too thin. It's enough as I've written above to hold the action scenes together, but there could be more. And a character like Blade deserves more (imo). The drama therefor isn't the best ... also it's use of clichés doesn't help. Some characters are underwritten ... That's that! :o)
Write a negative movie review.

There's considerable amount of money behind this production, so the look of it is very good. It includes some interesting appearances by Gilbert Roland, Eddie Burns, and a brief cameo at the beginning by Christopher Lee. There are a few exciting gunfights, and a humorous bit or two - the satire on Django, the Man with No Name, and Sabata is amusing, especially when they are given the names of failed presidents of the Mexico revolution.

The trouble is, there isn't any purpose in satirizing the Spaghetti Western as is attempted here. The key element in the Spaghettis is IRONY, which easily blends into comedy; in fact the source of all Spaghetti's is Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which is universally recognized as one of the great black comedies of all time, and most Spaghettis easily slipped over the edge into real comedy of a very sophisticated variety. Perhaps the best evidence of this is found in the Trinity films, which are both openly Spaghettis and openly slap-stick comedy. So why bother satirizing a genre that - by its very nature - satirizes itself? Consequently, I found the whole enterprise essentially unconvincing. None of these characters were people I would ever care about, the story was generically cliché, and the production values only reflected the money involved, not the passion of the director. Over all, a banal and futile effort to cash in on the phenomenon it mocks.
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...

This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I love this movie ! I think I've seen it 5 times already (it was quite a success in France and they often play it on TV). Ok, it's a thriller and there is great tension. But mostly (and specifically in the second part) it is absolutely hilarious ! And very original. The directing and photography are just splendid.
I'm sure all of the Canadians on IMDb are all too familiar with Canadian content, and how much of it is... well, shall we say, lackluster. There are a select few Canadian shows that are actually worth watching, however, this is definitely one of them.

Simple premise. Two guys picking up girls in a bar with certain guidelines and rules, add in some witty and clever commentary from a group of surprisingly likable self-proclaimed "Alpha Males" and you have yourself some very entertaining programming. Each episode is solid. If the "players" are sub-par, there are some awkward moments to be had, and there is some gentle fun poked at them. If the "players" are good, it leads to moments that you just have to stand up and applaud, and some comical praise lavished at them.

The premise is kind of trashy, I know, and as a guy who usually takes pride in the fact that I'm elevated himself above typical, terrible reality television, it takes a lot for me to admit that this show is actually funny and enjoyable.

One thing that must be pointed out is how The Comedy Network did a terrible job marketing this show. For the longest time, I didn't even know the premise, and all I knew was that there was somehow a shirtless guy who "loves cougars" involved. However, after actually watching the show, I was surprised by how surprisingly slick it looks for Canadian content (despite a pretty lame opening credits sequence). So give it a chance. I have yet to find someone in the target demographic (18-30 year old males) who have actually watched the show (and not just the annoying commercials) who hasn't liked it.

Bring it back for a third season, Comedy Network. It actually has a good premise, as opposed to some other Canadian shows you've had (cough*girls will be girls*cough). I usually reserve 10/10 ratings for "works of art," but I just have so much fun watching this show and I think that it has been unfairly judged my many, that I just had to.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The late Director John Frankenheimer directed his first feature film, The Young Stranger, after starting out directing live television dramas in New York City. This film came on the heels of the success of Rebel Without A Cause in 1955. James MacArthur made his feature film debut as a troubled teen with a movie producer father, played by James Daly, who doesn't establish enough of a relationship with his son. Kim Hunter plays the mother, who tries to bridge the gap between her husband and her son. The film uses the popular juvenile delinquent angle of the time to tell its story. MacArthur gets in trouble at a movie theater with an overzealous theater manager played by Whit Bissell. MacArthur, in turn, has to deal with a police sergeant, James Gregory, bent on teaching him a lesson. The material could easily have turned exploitative, laughable, and sensational, like any number of others of the period did. However, under the sure-handed direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a sensitive portrayal of teenage and parental dynamics. The dialog is realistic and most of the scenes hold up surprisingly well. Some of the scenes with Bissell, as the theater manager, and Gregory, as the police sergeant, are a bit heavy-handed and dated. The performances are uniformly good though, which is necessary for a film of this nature and about this topic to succeed. This is an impressive feature film debut both for MacArthur and Frankenheimer. *** of 4 stars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It's hard to believe that a movie this bad could actually be released. The dialog was unnatural. Especially poor was the portrayal of the relationship between the boy and his future step-father. I guess you could say that they succeeded in producing awkward dialog, but what was said seemed false and artificial. The suspense just wasn't there. The music was about as bad as it gets. The only reason I watched this movie was because I live in the Death Valley area and was curious about what locations would show up on the screen. Fortunately the movie was on TV and so I didn't waste any money renting this sorry excuse for a film! I honestly believe that most amateurs could put together a more captivating plot than was presented here. It's too bad that the time of an entire film crew was wasted on such trash! I guess the only positive thing I can say about the movie is that some of the scenery was good.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details) 

IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.

The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.

I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
the 25th hour was a movie i just chanced upon.tuning in late at night, this movie kept my fascination throughout the entire film.tony quin is this poor unsuspecting guy who just wanted to fall in love with a woman,and by simple jealousy , goes on this incredible journey--terrific movie,and a hidden treasure.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.

Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.

I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.

Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?

The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.

This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying! 

Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?

You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin "Meow" is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me! 

9/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.

Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.
Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Chapter One: Once Upon a Time At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content. 

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table. 

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End
I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10

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

negative
Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song "You Light Up My Life;" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.

Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--"You Light Up My Life." She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking "Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen." And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.

Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.

"Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Zombies"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.

I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.

The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant!

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

a great movie, with a rather unclear political message. it´s shot in a theatrical style, i.c. most of the action takes place inside. mayor surov and diana ashcroft seem equally suspicious of each other. emotions run high since the western tourists and business-people seem unwilling and unable to yield to the eastern-russian charm of the mayor, although he makes every effort to understand their point of view. the two opposite world-views are made pointedly clear, but the movie also shows that human emotions cannot be controlled by politics. its powerfully acted and has a high emotional impact for a 50s movie.
Write a positive movie review.

I am awed by actress Bobbie Phillips and her superb skill as an action star! This movie is propelled by her wonderful acting and terrific action prowess. I am a fan of sci-fi but I must say that this film exceeds most science fiction films in it's cinematography and mostly it's utilization of an actress whose presence supersedes the plot which is fine but is nothing new. Even though it looks as though this film was made for television, in my opinion it is better than most theatrically released films of its kind.
Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film. However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose you'll have to make do with what you can.

Anyway, this most excellent artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal. Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic.

And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the imagery incredibly well.

Fans of this film would do well to check out the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers.

--PolarisDiB

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

positive
I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.

On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.

So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I had no idea this movie was produced by "WWE". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..
This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to "check out" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual "Checking Out" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over "Big Fat Greek Wedding"....the "Big Fat Jewish Suicide" has arrived.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Think Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse. 

Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: There's no point in comparing this with the original series. Though different in look and content, both are true to the original idea. That is, an SF/horror anthology series. Due to indifferent scheduling in Australia, I've only managed to catch a small number of episodes spread over the first few seasons. The very first episode really did give me the creeps (nightmares at my age ...!) but a number of others did fall flat; generally when the stories moved into horror realms and away from SF. I only hope the DVDs reach us eventually.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I can honestly say that "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" was a much better movie than I expected. Allow me to clarify the plot in case the title of the film is a little too vague - there is a bed that eats. An evil bed. It eats people. Several unsuspecting women on an "outing" of some kind, stumble across the sinister "sack" and ultimately fall prey to it's hunger. The bed's devouring process consists of a yellow foam soaking people into it's inner... stomach acid; all complete with chewing sounds. This is a very strange cult flick and the only film from George Barry who had forgotten he made it until word-of-mouth of it's newfound cult status got back to him and he decided to release it on DVD. Not a bad movie at all, if you can look past the lousy acting and enjoy the hokey effects - the most laughable being the guy whose hands are eaten off and he is left with only plastic looking skeletal fingers... Pretty dreamlike tone to it, too, coming across as very surreal and aberrant - mainly the whole thing involving the artist behind the painting and the demonic back story of the bed. If you like bizarre no-budget, oddball flicks than definitely seek out "Death Bed".

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

positive
29 Sept 1990 marked a small but important milestone in my appreciation of horror flicks. This was the date that BBC1 broadcast (for the only time I'm aware of) Jeff Lieberman's super-creepy 1981 shocker Just Before Dawn, and it made a huge impression on me. Nearly twenty years later, I'm delighted to report that I've finally got my hands on the two-disc Shriek Show / Media Blasters special edition, and it's just as eerie and unsettling as I remember it, if not more so.

The plot, as is usual for genre flicks (and this was Lieberman's first film as a 'director for hire', though he did at least remove all the religious cult snake-handling mumbo-jumbo from the screenplay), is a bit thin - five likable twenty-somethings (including Chris Lemmon, son of Jack, in a pair of uncomfortably tight white strides) venture into the dense Oregon woodlands to do a spot of camping and to check out a patch of land that's been bequeathed to one of their number. But Just Before Dawn stands out from a crowd of imitators because Lieberman wastes no time in showing us just how deranged things are on this particular patch of mountain, with a complete innocent skewered and a drunk preacher's truck shoved down a hill and engulfed in flames within minutes of the film beginning. The youngsters come rolling into the picture in a snappy Winnebago, Blondie's 'Heart of Glass' pounding on the soundtrack, and before you can say "Texas Chainsaw Massacre!" they've clobbered an innocent deer with the front bumper and had their first taste of aggro from the heavy-set maniac responsible for the opening catastrophes. Forest ranger Roy (George Kennedy) warns them that things are likely to go awry if they go any further, but they go ahead with the trip anyway, refusing to give the sozzled preacher a ride even though he's understandably scared witless and finally pitching camp miles from anywhere. Needless to say, things go downhill from here.

Although this film's not short on bloody horror and well-handled action scenes, the standout moments for me are those where Lieberman lets his camera zoom out, long and slow, from apparently innocuous shots of the fun-loving kids larking around in the wilderness, or just lets it settle for a while on the dense, imposing, people-dwarfing woodlands. He makes the Oregon exteriors as threatening and as ominous as Kubrick made the Overlook Hotel's spacious interiors in the Shining, and Brad Fiedel's score (discounting the horribly distorted racket that runs over the titles) stays the right side of intrusive, underscoring the slowly escalating menace with subtlety and flair. There are plenty of surprises along the way, nods to Deliverance with the discovery of a backwoods babe and her freaky, disturbing family, and a truly bizarre kill technique deployed shortly before the film's end. I won't spoil it for you. I've said enough.

Quite why this undervalued horror gem fell through the cracks and became a cult item instead of a breakout hit is hard to ascertain, but hopefully it will be rediscovered and appreciated for years to come - it deserves to be.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive