cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This is one heck of a sleazy film. Like so many "women in chains" films, this one is chock full of lesbianism. However, unlike most prior films, which strongly implied this, BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA shows an awful lot of skin as a horny female prison guard leers at the women as they shower as well as has sex with one of the inmates. For the early 1970s, this is definitely a soft-core pornographic film--sort of like GIRLS GONE WILD GOES TO PRISON! It's also a bad rip-off of THE DEFIANT ONES, though in this case it's two hot females who hate each other who are chained together when they escape. Whereas the original film is considered a classic, this one can only be considered a classic example of bad taste. That's because there is no subtlety and the movie is just cheap--cheap thrills, cheap writing and very cheap acting.

Pam Grier is the "black inmate with an attitude"--a lady who was set up and sent to prison on this hellish island. Margaret Markov is a revolutionary. When they escape, they both can't stand each other and have opposite goals. However, since it is cliché-driven, there's really no surprise in how the film ends--with their both becoming (gag me) friends.

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

negative
Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

It has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%). 

I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!! 

And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]

My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...

Only....

Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....

It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....

She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....

In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!

maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....

very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "Brotherhood of Satan" is one of the most underrated horror films of all times.Why it hasn't achieved a cult status is beyond me.This is a chilling tale of terror and witchcraft which contains one of the most powerful and disturbing climaxes in the annals of screen horror.In the small American town some children have disappeared and their parents been violently murdered.What is the cause of hysteria?The film is really eerie,some scenes are genuinely unnerving and definitely not easily forgotten.The suspense never lets up,the acting is really good,and the climax is bizarre and disturbing.Check out this forgotten gem of satanic horror.Absolutely recommended.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This flick, which is a.k.a. "Life In the Fast Lane" is easily one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in a long time. I think it was made in mind of the sick, twisted and jaded L.A. women who represent about .00000001 of the population in the States. The characters are all one-dimensional, even the lead. After she stabs her boyfriend in the head with some scissors, a cheap laugh is attempted (and unsucceeds) by sticking a cork in the boyfriend's skull to stop the bleeding. Oh, clever! Patrick Dempsey (whose movies are almost always a class act --sarcasm) plays this "devil" who changes her life - but from what we've seen, her life was this series of vignettes to begin with. No emotion, no laughs, no story. The only reason I give this a 2 is that Jeffrey Jones is ok as the priest and there is a bit of style (albiet zero substance) in the camerawork. Otherwise, one of the 5 worst films I've seen. Grade 2 out of 10 AN F! I think that even the most drugged out junkie who would laugh at a toilet seat falling would dislike this film. I can't stress enough how much you should stay away.



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

negative
Taking its cues from backwoods classics Deliverance and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Jeff Lieberman's Just Before Dawn might not offer much very new in terms of plota maniac stalks and kills a group of campersbut still manages to be an effective shocker thanks to the director's deft handling of the material, great use of the stunning scenery, even greater use of women in hot-pants, a brooding synth score from Brad Fiedel and a nifty twist towards the end (although one that should be apparent to those who have been paying attention).

Thanks to solid performances from its capable castincluding Oscar winner George Kennedy as forest ranger Roy McLeanthere is a sense of realism to Just Before Dawn that is all too often missing from this kind of fare. The film also offers a pretty creepy maniac (who sniggers like Dick Dastardly's dog Mutley and uses a nasty serrated machete to kill), and delivers a couple of very imaginative sequences which help lift it above many of its contemporaries: a topless woman (gratuitous nudity box well and truly ticked) in a lake discovers that the hand that has been groping her underwater doesn't belong to her boyfriend; and a shortsighted character makes out with his pal's girlfriend (as a joke), unaware that the person who is slowly approaching is not his friend but the killer.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist).
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.

You MUST check out the "Moose commentary": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it!
I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Just saw 'The League of Gentlemen: Apocalypse' at a special screening in Manchester, with Mark Gatiss and Reece Shearsmith of the League in attendance.

At the back was Peter Kay (who has a brief cameo in the film) affectionately heckling at the back during the Q & A session after the film.

The film was complicated (in a good way) and very very funny. It follows Geoff Tipps, Hilary Briss and Herr Lipp as they try and save fictional Rosyton Vasey from the disinterest of their creators.

The League play a wide range of their characters and themselves (or character based on themselves) and are ably supported by the cream of British character and comedy actors such as Bernard Hill, Victoria Wood and David Warner.

Warner is a particular stand out reminding me of his smooth and cutting turn in 'Time Bandits'.

The film swims in and out of various realities and allows some of the denizen's of Rosyton Vasey some space to grow beyond their usual limits of their comedy shtick.

Steve Pemberton's Herr Lipp has a great Bretchian moment near the end of the movie and has to make a decision about his purpose and meaning in life which brings a lump to the throat at an unexpected moment and surprises you with its tender affection for the characters.

This echoes something Mark and Reece said in the Q & A afterwards, that the plot of the league being tired of their famous characters is spurious and that the whole film is really a love letter to them.

For a format that started as a radio character-based sketch show, these guys have really evolved the idea so far as to sustain a movie which takes you on a journey through fiction, 'reality', comedy, tragedy and a pleasing journey for two of the less obvious characters to carry a long form story from their 70 odd existing creations.

The fans of the show will love it. It pays off dedication and attention to detail in spades, the uninitiated may be a little lost, but the joy of the LoG was always the ability to almost instantly tune into their acutely observed characters and take the stylistic leap into farce and expressionistic movie homage.

There are homages a plenty in this one including 'The Shining' and 'La Belle et la Bete', to name but two I spotted and they ably demonstrate their love for cinema and history with a segment in 1690's England that makes perfect sense when you're engaged with the movie.

What can I say, I marvelled, boggled, emoted and snickered throughout and they have definitely pulled off what many have failed at. A successful British TV comedy to cinema translation.

If you've watched and enjoyed 'The League of Gentlemen' in the past, go see it; you will enjoy.

If you haven't, rent/buy a DVD and then go see it.

Well done guys and thanks for the charming and humorous Q & A.

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

positive
Trekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Lou Costello (sans Abbott) plays a small town self-employed "rubbish collector" (and the inventor of a time-controlling machine!) who is secretly courting the niece of the town big-shot. After a spat, Lou's girl (Dorothy Provine) runs into a misty cave--why it's misty we never learn--and emerges as a 30 foot giant. Provine is certainly a good sport, and she doesn't bother trying not to look ridiculous (it would've been impossible anyway), yet the screenwriter is really cruel to this character, turning her not only into a giant but a nagging harpy as well. Provine bosses Costello around while creating havoc with the Army troops who get called in, but nothing funny is done with the transformation. Trumped by "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman" the previous year, the film does feature Lou Costello in his final bow, but provides little else. The special effects are marginal, while the script needed funnier lines and the direction snappier pacing. *1/2 from ****
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of "the white man's burden." I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of "America", not the "United States"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical.
Write a positive movie review.

First of all, around the time I wrote this comment, I had already read what kittiwake-1 had written about this game and was confused. This is a video game and not an actual movie. I mean, I myself would choose a good Deniro movie or playing a video game any day. But, dude, what are you talking about? Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on, shall we? The video game adaption of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, as you may have guessed, based on the movie of the same name. What's stranger is that this was released three years after the film was released. Whether that's due to a slow development time or just plain laziness, no one really knows. At least, I don't.

The game allows the player to play as the four main characters of the movie: Jen, Shu Lien, Li-Mu-Bi, and Dark Cloud (Whose story is a secret bonus that is unlocked for separate gameplay.) All four of these characters have fighting styles based on how they fought in the movie. However, the real eye candy is the evasion moves that allow each character to avoid the blows of an enemy's attack in the most impossible and gravity defying ways that were first showcased in the movie.

The story is obviously based on the story told in the movie. The story in the game is told using CG movies and spoken in a subtitled Mandarin language (A nice little touch, considering I preferred the foreign language track of the film over the dubbed one.) The story goes to expand on what might've happened to the other characters during the film and even (No real surprise since pretty much all video game movie adaptions have done this) alters what officially happened in the movie to make the game have more action. I never thought Jade Fox would go so far as to actually go and get hired goons.

The real bonus for the story is the ability to decide how the game ends. What if Jen had all the ingredients to cure Li-Mu-Bi in her possession? What if Jen had not gotten back her comb? What if Li-Mu-Bi had not gotten the green destiny back for the second time? Your actions will decide the outcome of these scenarios and the destiny of the characters in this game. This is truly the best feature of the game.

Yet, for all it's strengths, it also showcases some flaws. The enemies often tend to become a nuisance after a while and the camera angle tends to be fixed on the most unhelpful of spots. Not even the special features (Which are unlocked after beating the game) are good enough to even forgive such hardships that are forced upon the player.

If you loved the movie, you may enjoy the game. However, this game is the only way you're going to be able to immerse yourself into a playable version of such a beautiful and amazing movie.

Of course, you could have just picked a Deniro movie instead.
Determine the sentiment:

I first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.

Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.

It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.

I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.

I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.

The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.

The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.

Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.

No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) "borrowed" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.

But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than "Supernova" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.

Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.

A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, "No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed." Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of "Don't be so damn stupid in the first place." Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid "Supernova" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.

One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.
Write a negative movie review.

I understand that Roger Corman loves to do things on the cheap, but this is just sad. I purchased this flick from the dollar bin at my local video store not a month after watching the original Carnosaur. I was blown away; It was the same damn movie, with just some Corbin Bernesen spliced in! It reminded me of all of those 80s ninja movies that took old Kung Fu movies and spliced in a bunch of white ninjas running doing cartwheels with the word "ninja" written on their headbands (if you haven't seen them, check out "Ninja Terminator", "The Thundering Ninja", "Black Dragon" and "Ninja Warriors"). Thanks Roger Corman; you just made me waste a dollar.
I just don't know how this stupid, crap, junk, garbage & good for nothing film is a blockbuster. It was so boring with a very, very weak (or no) story-line and wasn't even a jot funny. The film was about 135 minutes of only a paragraph of story about Prem (Salman Khan) is a love guru and is helping hapless & romantic Bhaskar (Govinda) to get the girl he wants. I'm not saying that I didn't like the film because it wasn't funny or anything, I will accept a movie that is not funny but has a decent story. The only two reasons why I can say it's a super-hit are: 

1. Salman Khan & Govinda are on-screen together but there first time together was in Salaam e Ishq which was a flop so it can't be. But it was a really good movie.

2. Salman Khan's name is Prem and all the films with that name have been a hit including Maine Pyar Kiya. So it's just luck.

I heard that it's a remake of Hitch, I've not seen it & I'm glad I didn't. Music is OK the only good songs are Do you want a partner, You're my love & Soni De Nakhre but what is the use of it in a really bad film, that too, if you have someone like Katrina Kaif who dances with two left feet? She is completely crap. Neither she knows acting, language (her voice is always dubbed for her), dance and always fails to impress. I do not like her one bit she was even disappointing in Koffee with Karan. Overall Partner is a disposable film with a disposable actress Katrina Kaif. Its better off that she is kicked out of Bollywood and never comes back again.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

**WARNING** MISERABLE MOVIE **WARNING** The day before Christmas eve, some nut case decided he'd entertain us by sending this movie as "entertainement" on TV. What in Gods name was he thinking?

This movie is filled with awful humor, despicable acting, lousy jokes and a disaster of a plot line. Randy Quaid plays the idiotic role as Cousin Eddie Johnson. Eddie is a brain dead person, who's incapable of even the simplest tasks. He was fired because he was dumb as a brick, but the company he worked for was sorry for it so they sent him and his family on a vacation. But being as stupid as he is, he managed to make the vacation into a disaster.

All-in-all it's the worst movie I've seen, and I have nightmares still over the miserable acting and the even more miserable jokes in this movie. It's so sad you ALMOST have to see it... But don't. The nightmares I have are far worse than any other nightmares you will ever have. Trust me... I hate this movie so bad because of it's acting, the humor, the "jokes" and the story. The only good thing was the nice scenery. 

Well It's my opinion, and I surely hope everyone agrees with me...
Determine the sentiment:

This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.

This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.

Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:

"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."

"oonga-bunga" 

"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, "Longer" the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites.
I thought the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.

I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

To date this is still the worst piece of rubbish I've ever viewed. So annoyed I even complained to Blockbuster for stocking it. Me and some friends rented it after looking at the back cover thinking we were in for a good horror film. The plot line seem to change during the film and there was lots of irrelevant padding. The film ended quite abruptly, I'm guessing they ran out of film. Sound quality was dire and the first female character had a very thick Spanish accent although she talked utter nonsense anyway. The guy provided a brief bit of eye candy until his bizarre attempts at murder. After wasting all the time to go into in-depth discussion on the workshop and its many power tools, he opts to put a plastic bag over her head. All in all on second thoughts I think you have to watch this film to actually believe it exists.
Klatret©ªsen(Catch That Girl) is really great movie! It's a 'happy' movie. I watched this movie in 'Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival(PiFan)' on July 12nd, 2003. There is Action + Adventure + Comedy + Thrill + Happy + Romance(cute kids' love Triangle!). You must see this movie. :)

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

positive
I remember watching this series avidly, every Saturday evening. It was the highlight of the week. I loved everything about it, the location, the costumes, the actors and the wonderful music by Clannad (I still have their Legend album). I loved the way they solved the problem of Michael Praed leaving by creating another Robin, this time the Earl of Huntingdon. I believe there were legends of several Robins in medieval times. Another thing I loved was the fact that it was filled with young actors, I'm sure Robin and his men would have young, after all people didn't live that long in those days. Other Robins always look too old (Kevin Costner with his ridiculous accent looked like Robin's granddad). The only sad thing was the ending, it's a shame they couldn't at least have done a one off special to tie up all the loose ends and give it a happier ending.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I don't understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.

The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.

All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit "Pedro".

By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.

Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.

He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.

Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hi To read the entire plot around "OZ" just look at IMDb here to find it.

**WARNING SPOILERS INSIDE THIS REVIEW !** Oz is the a series that has not only moved me but also shows a small bit. Of the American prison system, but i have to say (judging on discovery channels program over jail) it is not really realistic.

Although i got to say, there not shy, rapes,shanking (stabbing) happens allot. Still it is television, so for you ppl out there that think this is realistic wrong.

There is a good degree of violence in it, and some here and there overdone scenes (plot over plot over plot) that can get pretty boring. But remember the series is almost ancient by now. So times do change as well i believe i should judge this in the time line as it came out.

As the season prolonged up to season 5 it was pretty good!. Until one of the cons wins a lottery ticket of 2 million dollars, because he talked to god it struck me as "ok this is getting to the point i do not want to see this series no more" Still i proceeded! And now i just seen the episode 3 of season 6. This is were cereal gets his brain zapped and then his "mom" hold him after, while he is drooling. Then you see O Reilly cry as well seeing his bro like that (RL BROTHERS As well) Now thats by far the best scene out of the entire "OZ" series, that was real to me! Still do not read this wrong that I'm trying to crash and burn it. It is a really good series! And even now 2010 well worth a watch ! I give it a 7 because of the storyline that weakens with the season. But still a golden glove.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that  not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Since Wesley Snipes descended(or Ascended)to the world of DTV action movies the result has been Miss,so-so,and miss.Unstoppible was weak.7 seconds was entertaining.The marksman was the proverbial scraping of the septic tank.

And what of The Detonator?We'll anything would be above suffering the Marksman again.But the Detonator holds a small amount of merit that is hampered by a lazy star and Low budget.

Sonny Griffith is a not-so-by-the-book Covert op who busts illegal arms dealers in Poland.When his latest assignment ends up a bullet-buffet leaving a pile of bodies;Sonny then is ordered to escort a witness; Nadia (the ever-hot Silvia Colloca) to the US.Trouble is; Sonny is being duped by a traitor in his own organization who is keeping his trail hot for Gangsters with Nuclier Ambitions.

Snipes delivers in the action department.He is in half-blade mode here.He actually does well in the first 15 minutes of the Detonator,before descending into pure sleepwalking mode that ruined the Marksman.Colloca does more than look pretty.There is some conviction to her scenes.A lot of the actors look familiar,and have been in the last 3 or 4 Seagal/Snipes movies.Its always good to see Michael Brandon again.

The action is telegraphed here.But never boring.Running,car chases,Fights.Director Po-Chih Leong seems to have gotten better after the Seagal farce;Out of Reach.He does a credible job.But is constantly hampered by the low budget.Enough with the eastern Euro-locations.Its cheapening the movie's look.Vancover cannot be that much expensive can it?

The Detonator ends just average.It does not have the so-bad its fun aspect of Seagal' Mercenary for Justice. But it is nowhere near as entertaining as Van Damme's Second in command.Nor as thrilling as Dolph's Mechanik.Perhaps Dolph should direct Wesley next eh?

Its high time The producers pump a little more money and thought into these DTV titles with the kind of money they are making from them.Its only fair.The result could be a high seller perhaps?

Snipes would be advised to try making this one his last DTV action flick.Its sad to see YET another waste of this gifted actor's Talents.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

One of the most underrated comedies. Dan Akroyd is hilarious in this over the top role; Charles Grodin gives a performance nearly as good as in "Midnight Run;" and Walter Matthau gives a superb comedic performance in this sometimes subdued, sometimes wacky film. Akroyd and Matthau have great chemistry together....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

When I saw this film at a festival years ago I was very impressed and I started to looking for it. Nothing to do, not in the cinemas, nor on DVD neither on Blue ray. Absolutely nothing!!! How it's possible this could really happen??? The direction is IMPECCABLE, the story is intriguing and has been filmed in a very original way the music it's perfect and James Franco is hot as hell!!!

Please release this master piece and allow it to have it's proper life!!!!!!!!!! This is really a very great movie that people should see and it deserve another chance!!!!!! 

Edvard
Write a positive movie review.

Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - "eXistenZ" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee ("P.R. nerd") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films ("Videodrome", "Scanners", "The Fly", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - " I can't help myself." "eXistenZ" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm.
The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding. It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences.

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

positive
I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!

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

negative