cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
The basic plot of 'Marigold' boasts of a romantic comedy wherein the film industry is kept as a backdrop. An American actress Marigold, played by Ali Carter gets stuck in India. Worse that, she is out of money. She then decides to play a small role in a Bollywood musical, so that she can earn enough money to get back to her nation. Here she gets to meet Indian choreographer Prem, played by Salman Khan. Basically, the movie fails at the script level. Just by calling a film a Hollywood venture doesn't guarantee quality cinema. Marigold stands out as the best example. The art direction is weak and outdated. Musically, Marigold turns out to be a dud. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's is far from being acknowledged as a decent hear. Actingwise, Salman delivers of his most amateurish performances till date. Ali Larter is good and has immense screen presence. Performance wise too, she is good.

One can also find good reviews regarding this movie at http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=36310

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

negative
Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of?

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

positive
This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like. It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Great movie!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.

i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.

vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires. 

I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.

but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.

Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.

well worth watching over and over.

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

positive
I can't say that this movie deserves a ten, because I would be lying. I adored this movie when I saw it, though! It carries the unique bond of a friendship between a teenager and a dolphin. Although it doesn't display the sweetness that Jesse and Willy had in Free Willy, it provides an exciting movie that the whole family will enjoy! If you love marine animals, or if u love just a perfect family film, this movie is suited for YOU! Flipper definitely shows us how adorable dolphins are, and they are playful and could easily be house pets if everyone had a big enough pool! I love whales and dolphins, so obviously this movie works for me. I do think that the producers should have chosen another shark instead of the hammerhead to enhance the antagonist part in the story. Perhaps a great white? FLIPPER IS MAGNIFICENT! So check it out!

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

positive
Warning: Herzog is a filmaker, and as such tends to be a bit overly dramatic. So obsessions about closing doors may or may not be a real part of the character's life, but a filmaker's dramatic embellishment - or so both agreed at the premiere in San Francisco. But Herzog's usual fascination with character, dreams and perseverance are well suited by this story first published in Soldier of Fortune, and now a full length autobiographical book. (The Soldier of Fortune comment brought loud boos from the politically correct SF audience, and both filmaker and main character had to ensure the audience who had just seen the film, that SOF's interest was misplaced - so warning, this is not Rambo, just survival.)

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

positive
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the "house" is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from "bomb" status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Let's start from this point: This is not a movie intended for the common audience. Utterly bizarre, somehow incomprehensible, totally unpredictable, it just keep you stoned watching at the screen trying to figure out what will happen next. If that by itself doesn't make you agree it is an excellent movie, then go back to your "family" movies and forget about MOTORAMA. It has material to be considered a cult movie, it can be placed in the same category with movies that win awards in Cannes or other intellectual film festivals, but, sadly, Hollywood already let if fall in oblivion, simply because it is not commercial. The performance of young Jordan Christopher Michael may not be Oscar material, but he gives the right touch to the story. Even the genre is difficult to describe; it is not a comedy in the proper sense, you don't know if you are supposed to laugh at the strange situations in which Gus gets involved. It is more like an impossible adventure that some kids may wish to have, but don't let them watch it either... it is not a movie for kids. So, if you like Disney movies or are looking for a "Home Alone" style, this one is definitively not for you. But if you enjoy reading Edgar Alan Poe or the works of Tim Burton, then you will like Motorama. So, jump in your red Mustang, get a tattoo spelling "Tora" and cruise Strangeland with Gus. I'd like that...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.

What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.

Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.
When I heard Disney had the rights to "Underdog",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like "The Incredibles". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? "Underdog" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala "Roger Rabbit",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog."Underdog" can't have an "energy pill",as we're now so "enlightened" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as "Cad" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school "Underdog" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of "The Go-Go Gophers" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

What could have been an excellent hostage movie was totally ruined by what apparently looks like a bored director ... there were so many directions that the movie could have taken ... a vampire slash-fest was not one of these!!! The last 45 mins. or so results in the movie being an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. ...and sex machine?? ... you gotta be kidding me! The acting talents of the likes of Juliette Lewis and Harvey Keitel (not to mention George Clooney) are completely wasted in this nonsensical movie. 

The director... Robert Rodriguez, known for his other gory flicks including el mariachi, desperado, once upon a time in Mexico, and the very recent sin city ... really holds your attention with the well executed first half ... which leads you to believe that you are in for an entertaining time ... but then apparently for no reason, and without any provocation, the madness starts ... there's even feeble attempts at parody and comedy ... truly exasperating!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've commented once on this Chucky great, but I had to do it again to say some things about the film, when I first saw it in a great balcony in a great theater. The film was a lot of fun in the theater and my first Chucky film ever in a theater, and that was a special moment for me, because I cherish Chucky. The other horror villains are referenced with GREAT COOLNESS!!! And the gore was shockingly great! The scene where the gay kid gets nailed by the truck was amazingly cheerful! That was a great gore scene!!!!! And the ending was so bizarre and shocking it made me s*%@ my pants. The idea of having the Seed of Chucky was very, very bizarre and shocking! When I left the theater I just loved it and I could'nt believe it was real. The bizarre and different qualities of this Child's Play installment for some reason made me mark it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Child's Play series. It just had that intensely shocking, bizarre and different quality that reminded me of Jason Goes To Hell. A sure ***** out of *****. Here's how I rank the series : 1,4,2,3. I loved it but not quite as much as Tom Holland's original Child's Play classic. I can't wait for Seed of Chucky! Bring it on!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, "what's the message?"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel "The Karamazov brothers", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to "they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.
There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction. The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department. Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything. Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.

From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.

To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.

Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.
Determine the sentiment:

A trash classic! Basically what we have here is a story about a couple of American teenagers (one male, one female both beautiful people of course) who seem to be psychically linked, in that every time both of them fall asleep, they can inhabit each others dreams and express each others innermost desires... think Mills & Boon meets X-files and you'll be somewhere near the mark. Actually, its more like an unhappy hybrid between one of Ed Wood's famously bad B- movies and a particularly silly episode of Melrose Place, so tacky are the special-effects and so amateurish is the acting. The actors who inhabit (I wouldn't say act in) this flick say their lines like they're reading from cue cards and pout when they're supposed to be showing an emotion, and it comes as no great shock (or loss to the industry) that they have since faded into obscurity. The whole thing is just a laughably misguided mixture of styles that don't go together at all, and the end result is a intriguing curiosity that no doubt will be lapped up by purveyors of so-bad-they're-good films in years to come. I'll probably be the only person who ever comments on this film, but if you are reading and have seen it please get back, it gets kinda lonely round here...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?

To begin with we, "the viewers" at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).

I can tell you "right now" that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.

As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.

Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague.

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

negative
In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line "The Matrix just got Deadler!", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called "Expect to Die" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says "Beablier". Anyway.

To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.

Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.

In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.

It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????

Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.

Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.

At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.

On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.

All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.

Darkhunters 0/5

p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.

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

negative
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.

I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!

The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.
This movie is really bad, trying to create scientific explanations for zombies always ends up taking away credibility from the history of the movie. There are so many things i could point about the movie that i could almost write a book on how much the movie sucks. For instance, there were like 50 people on the plane, they killed like 100 and they kept coming, apparently the "virus" gives hepatic complications because everybody had yellow eyes, also the virus makes people roar like lions or something, and the virus not only regenerates tissue as it also gives superhuman strength, not to mention that this virus messes up peoples hair. It's also important to notice that if you shoot someone with a pistol (probably only happens on planes) that person is kicked back in the air. Remember that if you are escorting a prisoner on a plane and you loose him, always look inside the drawers and cabinets the size of a bottle, you never know where those bastards are going to hide. And if by any chance you can land a plane full of zombies against a mountain and survive (happens all the time), after watching dozens of people being killed, just walk away from the plane, watching the sunrise and making jokes about dating the flight attendant. :)

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

negative
I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.

Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony  isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer). 

Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.

Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.

For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.

Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.

Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?

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

negative
I am a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha/Kate is more secluded, and Mario/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I couldn't believe that the Adult Swim guys came up with this character. I laughed for days just thinking about this show. Having finally seen the pilot I guess I will stick around for a few more episodes. Assy is pretty funny and the whole crew of police show characters are around, but Assy is hard to understand and that was a little frustrating. Most of the humor revolves around the fact that the title character is literally a walking ass with nothing else but legs that sport socks with garters and feet with traditional wing tips. Assy drinks too much and "plays by his own rules" as you might have guessed. The only other funny moments are Assy shooting many,many people and spending time at home - in the bathroom. It is not Squidbillies funny, but it is worth a look.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny "American Pie" was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to "eat his sausage" goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Haggard: The Movie is the real life story of Ryan Dunn, and his girlfriend who cheated on him, also with the help from his two friend, 1. A skate boarder who lives for nothing, and, 2. A trying-to-be funny scientist (which doesn't really work) played by Bam Margera and Brandom Dicamillo.

The film Haggard The Movie also has a lot of the characters from Jackass, etc, but to say it was written by Bam Margera and Co. this is a very weak attempt, seems to me like it was written when he was bored, or as a project with they did not pay a lot of attention to.

The films also stars Bam's girlfriend Jennifer Rivell, who plays Glauren, Ryan's girlfriend who basically cheated on him, again very bad acting by Jennifer, another actor that some people may be interested in is Steve a.k.a Hellboy, played by RakeYohn, which his character does not seem to be with the story, again bad acting, also this character does not really have a lot of lines in this film which basically makes it very boring. but worst of all, is Raab's character, the voice sound like a smoker who basically has throat cancer, also i think he could have been improved! Overall i think the characters in this film aren't with the story, like in one scene, it would be on one certain character, a minute later, a different scene, different character.

To say that this is supposed to be a film, sort of a documentary, its not played by the characters as a documentary, the acting makes you think that its a cheap attempt at making a film with your spare time.

Towards the middle of the film we start to lose focus on the main character Ryan Dunn, although a lot of the attention is on Bam and Brandon.

In conclusion this film is OK, if you laugh at things that aren't very funny, stupid stunts, terrible acting and the occasional nude scene!, Also i think there there are too many scenes of just no talking and just music! 7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A film is beyond all expectations, an excellent insight into the human condition. What exactly drives Mila to have her ass painted. What could push a human so far that there only way to escape is to have there rear passage repeatedly painted by strangers.

This film is not afraid to stair squarley in the face of the ass painting issue. Simply breathtaking. Roll on the sequel or whatever comes next from the geniuses who made this.
Determine the sentiment:

I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION! 

This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option. 

Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.

I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.

This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.

0/10!


How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for "District Hill Street" and "NYPD Blue". These are brilliant shows, and "Rejseholdet" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Malcolm McDowell diagnoses Megan Gallagher's daughter and she as having a form of illness, when they believe they are seeing "The Huldre", troll-like creatures which live with "the rocks and the roots" (to quote the movie).

Basically a family moves into an older house, which has a smaller doll-house in the backyard. The daughter (well played by Sofia Vassiliova) starts to befriend the creatures, until they become vindictive. The family cat also disappears.

There are a few good scenes with Megan Gallagher ("Millennium") and Malcolm McDowell as the psychiatrist. There is also something strange which occurred to one of McDowell's patients.

If you enjoy this type of story, you may also like "Bad Ronald", which had a similar odd theme, and the house is haunted by bad Ronald (Scott Jacoby) only that movie is from the 70's. 7/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is in the same league as Ishtar. Lots of wasted talent. Who let this bomb escape? When Sigfried says an example has to be made, in reference to a nuclear bomb, I said "Please let it be this theatre!" Don't waste your time. Not even worth a free rental! And where did they get these shills to fill the comments section on IMDb? I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen the original series enjoyed this stinker. Steve Carell is not a physical comedian. If they removed the "comedy" and made it a straight action movie, it could pass. What the heck was the purpose of the dance scene? Also, the fat jokes and references were tasteless. This movie never missed a chance to go for the lowest common denominator and scenes just ended, it seemed, as if no one thought them through. Just awful! Save your time, if not money and give this movie a pass!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This twisted comedy is well acted and directed. Very funny and the production quality is outstanding. It is easy to see why this short film has been accepted into so many festivals and won awards.

Everyone can identify with Calvin having a bad day, bad week, bad life. Travis Davis plays the role superbly! Richard Moll as Tim brings darkness and foreboding that gives this film just the right twistedness. The old man adds to the humor of the story. And who wouldn't love the suicidal goldfish!

This short will bring lots of laughs. And don't miss the credits as they are playing at the end!
What's an example of a movie review?

I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clichés, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone and I'm unsure how Germans will take the film, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive