cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)

2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Blörg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its "action" and "suspense" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.

I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is so bad it will be my contribution to the next bad movie party I go to. It is clear from the start that Steve Gutenburg was taking this role seriously.... the other principles were walking through their lines. I think they got a whiff of how much it stank early on and they were going through the motions for their paychecks. Sean Bean "acted" as usual but was spared sharing space on screen with any of the principles till the final scene where it was like an actor walking onto a high school stage that is how defined the contrast was. Some actors do not look good scruffy. Some actors should not bulk up for a part. Those two statements apply to "Police Academy" Steve. His scruffy look translates to bum and indigent and his bulking up makes him look potato lumpy not buff. Pair that with one of the worst scripted dialogues in Hollywood history and you have BAD movie. I can only guess that all of the principles really really needed the money for remodeling or something or their agents signed them before the script was written by the monkeys that must of typed it out. I would love to know the back story to this disaster.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it

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

negative
I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn. 

And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me. 

On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes. 

Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in "Twelfth Night" so it's cool.

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

positive
Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.

I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about "Radio" and "IPod".

Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. "D-"
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the "Irasburg Incident" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...

Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!
Write a positive movie review.

The last good Ernest movie, and the best at that. How can you not laugh at least once at this movie. The last line is a classic, as is Ernest's gangster impressions, his best moment on film. This has his best lines and is a crowning achievement among the brainless screwball comedies.
I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!

So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it. 

So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!

Muawha!

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.

Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

If, like me, you actively seek out the rarest and weirdest (and often most awful) that world cinema has to offer, then you should look no further than the supernatural horror output of Hong Kong in the early 80s. Often mixing bizarre black magic with kung fu and silly comedy, and usually packed with plenty of creepy crawlies (snakes, worms, eels, centipedes etc.), these movies are about as bizarre as it gets.

Succubare is definitely a case in point: featuring a mountain tribe whose women keep their men from straying by casting nasty spells over them (that, should they leave, cause them to fill up with writhing creatures and die an agonising death), some so-so martial arts, and lots of real life animal killing (much of which is perpetrated by a geek who has absolutely no bearing on the story), this film is just plain strange.

A prolonged scene in which the tribeswomen hunt for snakes and insects, casually throwing the creatures into the baskets on their backs, is quite fascinating; a tribal feast that sees a poor ox bashed on the head and then torn apart is totally disgusting; and the moments that show worms crawling in open wounds and being vomited onto the floor will have the squeamish losing their appetite for a while.

However, it's the live animal munching that really qualifies Succubare for legendary status amongst fans of out-there movie-making. It's thoroughly vile to watch and yet strangely compelling: the geek chomps on a snake, woofs down a fat, juicy toad (nasty!), and hungrily devours a mouse (biting off its head and then shoving the rest in afterwards).

Not a great movie (hell, it's not really even a mediocre movie), Succubare is recommended only to people who think they've seen it all. This one gets 4 out of 10 from me, which is probably more than it deserves, but I begrudgingly respect it for being able to make me feel slightly ill.
THE RIDDLE was written and directed by Brendan Foley in what appears to be an attempt to pull the mysteries of the Charles Dickens' novels into a contemporary story, but that attempt is thwarted by electing to use the two periods of time format in which the 'riddle' is unraveled. Despite a cast of well-known actors, trying their best to pull off this direct to DVD movie, the end product is a long, tedious, amateurish mess that can only be considered as entertainment if viewers are fans of the cast as remembered from other films. 

Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) is a journalist confined to reporting on dog racing events while he dreams of important reporting assignments. A series of similar murders happens to include an old friend of Mike's - Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a pub on the banks of the Thames, having just discovered an old valuable unpublished manuscript by Charles Dickens, and has a heart of gold, giving sandwiches away to such pathetic creatures as an old tramp beachcomber (Derek Jacobi). Sadie's murder attracts Mike to the role of detective journalism and with the help of policewoman Kate (Julie Cox) he begins to tie the investigation to clues he finds in reading the Dickens manuscript. Disrupting the flow of this rather simplistic story is the use of flashbacks to Dickens' time as Dickens (again Derek Jacobi) narrates a rather personal story of peculiar murders. The parallel between stories and the cross casting among actors may have worked in another's hands, but the finessing of this kind of venture escapes writer/director Brendan Foley. He draws his story to a close (at long last) with a tired Hollywoodesque ending. 

In addition to Jones, Jacobi, Cox, and Day, the film somehow attracted the attention of Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng, PH Moriarty and Mel Smith: their contributions are minimal but happily distracting. This is a flimsy bit of treacle leaving the viewer wondering how films of this quality ever find funding. Grady Harp
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Young Warriors (1983) 

While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.

Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.

So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.

The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.

At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy. 

The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.

If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.
Write a positive movie review.

The only reason The Duke Is Tops, one of several "race movies" made during the times of segregation, would be worth noting today is because it made the film debut of a 21-year-old singer named Lena Horne. She plays Ethel Andrews, a singer who has to leave her producer mentor Duke Davis (Ralph Cooper) in order to branch into the big time. Davis, however, has to fake having taken the money for her services in front of her so she won't feel sorry for having done so. He then teams up with Doc Dorando (Lawrence Criner) for a series of medicine shows throughout the south. Meanwhile, in New York, her new producers have bombed big time because they made her the whole show instead of simply the specialty act. Davis finds out from the radio and offers his services as producer and band leader to bring his lineup of other specialty acts, many of whom make their one of their few or only film appearances here, for his chance at the big time with Ethel next to him. Guess what happens? While the plot is the kind you've seen in thousands of other movie musicals during this time, the fact this was made for a certain audience makes this one of the more fascinating features I've seen during this Black History Month. Ms. Horne's singing is on good display here and it's interesting seeing her so young before her professionalism takes full hold later in her career. Among other supporting players there's an unconfirmed, according to IMDb, appearance by Lillian Randolph, Annie in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life and sister of Amanda Randolph who I just saw in the musical short The Black Network, as the woman with Sciatica who complains of not being cured after taking the Doc's medicine before Duke explains it's for the feet! And as a longtime Louisiana resident, I'd like to take note of two players from here in this movie: Joel Fluellen from Monroe as a tonic customer and Marie Bryant from New Orleans as the sexy dancer who appears near the musical climax. So for just Lena Horne alone, The Duke is Tops is worth seeing at least once.
Determine the sentiment:

I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!

Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Ugh. Pretty awful.

Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.

Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.

Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.

Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.

There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.

The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.

Not recommended, not even for Halloween.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The movie was better than what i expected. I was working on the movie set for a short period of time when Damien was making this film.The gun fire, stunt and acting came out pretty good on the editing tip.All thou the the music wasn't all that great. Better music would have top this film.Some of the music sound like the hippie days. Damien remember you have gang violence gangster's some oldies or hip hop would have did it. It was more realistic than blood in blood out.The casting was picked real well.Suspectentertaint did a good job in this film.The movie brought back a fill of a life style i use to live. But than at the end you do not always win. And in my history thats how it was.I adapted to the movie the first time i watched it.Damien Congratulatoins on this film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. Even being hangover didn't help. The plot is lousy, if existent. The relatively large number of beautiful girls are unable to help. I guess seeing an episode of temptation island with the sound turned of would give the same kind of experience. Do NOT see this flick
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Movies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima. Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations, Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is brilliant.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First off, I Hate Sci Fi Stuff, And Although This Movie got a little Sci Fi at times, That's Allright, Because At Least It Focused On Andre Toulon. In the last 3, Andre seemed to have kind of been Mentioned, but the Stories Never really focused on him, which made me mad. What also makes me mad is The Amount of 0's it Got on the Voting Chart. Give It a Rest People. If you saw this Movie and Liked it, Please vote for it. Please. What I Loved About this Movie is that It went back to Where it all started. When Andre first learned the Secret to Life. I would Recommend Renting this if you Have seen a Puppet Master Movie before and liked it. But not renting it if this is your First Time viewing one from the PM Collection, Mainly Because you might think all the Puppet Masters are as "Dull" as this one.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Broadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987} 

****/**** 

Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic masterpiece.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A great cast, a fantastic CGI monster and a brilliant script. If this film had had any of those things then it might not have been amongst the worst films I've ever wasted an hour and a half on. Infinite chimpanzees with infinite typewriters have not yet written the complete works of Shakespeare but along the way this has appeared in their waste-paper bin and somehow it got made into a movie. You can tell the the actors regret signing those contracts with every word they mutter directly into camera. The CGI is amateurish in the extreme and they might have created more tension of the cast had been attacked with the Sinclair Spectrum it was created on. I wanted to like this film, it has nice cameo appearances by Gil Gerard and Walter Koenig so I expected a fun horror movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It actually does try to take itself seriously but is about as much fun as trip to the dentist. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie, you'll only encourage them to make more.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big mistake!"Monster Man" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly well.The film borrows heavily from "Duel","The Blair Witch Project","Jeepers Creepers" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".The story is pretty silly,but there is enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy?
Write a negative movie review.

"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound "Noah's Ark"? 

A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests "Night Fright" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.

Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.
Write a positive movie review.

"Gypsy" is possibly the greatest musical ever written, so it's too bad that it's film version was such a disappointment. To make up for that, we have this re-make which, if not flawless, is an enjoyable and well done adaption of the musical. The script is completely accurate, all the songs included, and the staging remains close to the original Jerome Robbins' staging. Bette Midler is a deft choice for Rose, her singing and personality Merman-esquire, and her acting splendid. Peter Reigert is a fine Herby, if not a great singer, and Cynthia Gibb is a straight forward, natural Louise. In truth, a live taping of the 1989 revival with Tyne Daly might have been a better idea, if only because "Gypsy" is simply more exciting on stage, But this film is a fine translation of a great musical.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

and parading around a 14-year-old girl in a thong swimsuit is one of them. To fans of this movie, I'd like to ask: would you allow your daughter to walk around a resort dressed like that? And would your 14-year-old be able to handle the reaction she'd get from men? If yes, I'd like to know why, on both counts. A suit like that is a clear invitation to men; it's hypocritical to suggest that's not. 

And on another point, what teenage girl would ever claim her father was her lover, without the excuse of severe mental problems? That's almost as disgusting as the swimsuit. 

Simply put, some things are just not funny or appropriate, and they never will be.
Though the Our Gang comedies still have their followers, I've got to say that their attempt to graduate to feature films, courtesy of Hal Roach came up way short. Why did Roach have to pick the Civil War as is subject with all the attendant racism that would follow.

Dashing southern cavalier Phillips Holmes takes in young orphan Spanky McFarland and his young black friend Buckwheat Thomas after Spanky inadvertently exposes a card cheat on a riverboat. All is placid and serene in the Old South and then the Civil War comes to ruin it for everybody.

But even children can charm the worst in the world and there's none worse than those damn Yankees. They just come south and ruin it for everybody.

Criticized though it was for its southern viewpoint, Gone With The Wind did make a good case for the southern cause and the blacks portrayed even though servile which they would be out of necessity are still three dimensional characters. Hattie McDaniel would not have won her Oscar if it were not so. Butterfly McQueen's character of Prissy as silly and vacuous as she was has some dimension.

Here though is maybe some of the worst racial stereotyping ever brought forth in Hollywood. The companionship of Spanky and Buckwheat does show that kids get along, racial feelings are acquired not inbred. It's not the servility of the blacks that's objectionable, but there total acceptance of it. Right from that horrible watermelon song, sung over the title credits, the message of General Spanky is a bad one.

Yet it did get an Oscar nomination for Sound recording, probably one of the very few Hal Roach ever got out of the short subject field.

General Spanky is far from Gone With The Wind though.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.

The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.

Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' "The Sorrow and the Pity", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!

Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world.

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

positive
Committed stars (Heather Graham) along with (Casey Affleck) and (Luke Wilson). Its the story of Joline who is determined to find her ex-husband who is in the process of a mid-life crisis. 

Committed was not at all what I expected it was lacking in comedy which was ultimately the genre. It was beyond stupid and un-realistic, Casey Affleck delivered a reasonable performance, Graham's recent roles have been lack-luster and this is not an improvement.

Graham's most recent role was Blessed which I also found misleading and didn't appeal to me at all.

Pros Affleck

Cons Predictable, Unrealistic, Poor Acting and not a comedy movie!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

First of all, Katherine Hepburn is badly miscast as Clara. She just can't be convincing as the devoted, selfless, rather smarmy wife that the writers have created.

But the real weakness of the film is its shallowness in the face of a potentially great piece of drama. Schumann's bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder amounts to "Oh, oh, I have a headache" and the occasional angry word. Suicide? The word is used, but there's no sign of it in domestic scenes and when we see him in the mental hospital he's calm and subdued and smiling and optimistic. A superficial treatment. And Brahms is so upright and bourgeois - no sign of his gruff humour, his love of tweaking the noses of the establishment, no sign of his tortured attitude toward sex and women resulting from spending his youth playing piano in brothels. And was Clara's long concert career entirely about promoting Robert's music, or was she, in fact, a remarkable pianist who wanted a career for herself, a female pianist carving out a place for herself in a male world? Any sort of treatment of the lives of great artists is better than none, but this is a standard Hollywood, middle-of-the-road approach, particularly disappointing because the real story is so much more dramatic, so much more interesting, so much more human.
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story and solid performances. All the characters are cool, and Benno Fürmann is great as the psycho killer, plus Franka Potente gives a fantastic performance as the main lead. It did take a little while to get going, but it was never boring, and it had some good death scenes as well, plus the music is wonderfully creepy. I was lucky enough to get the subtitled version, instead of the dubbed, and I thought all the characters were quite likable, plus it's very well made and written as well. It has some really good plot twists too, and the effects are extremely well done, plus the ending is great. The finale is especially suspenseful, and Franka Potente was the perfect casting choice in my opinion, plus I wish Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey(David) didn't get killed of so soon, because he was a really cool character. There were actually a couple of moments where I felt uncomfortable but in a good way, and I must say this film deserved all it's praise, plus while it does have plot holes, it's not enough to hamper the film. This is a great German slasher, that's often quite suspenseful, and creative, with a fun story, and solid performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Stefan Ruzowitzky does a great! Job here with excellent camera work, very good angles, great close ups (see the opening sex scene), doing a great job of adding creepy atmosphere, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace.

There is quite a bit of blood and gore. We get cadavers cut open,plenty of very gory surgery scenes,lots of bloody stabbings,people are dissected while still being conscious, severed finger, self mutilation, gutting's, bloody slit throat, lots of wicked looking frozen corpses, plenty of blood and more.

The Acting is very solid!. Franka Potente is fantastic as the main lead, she was very likable, remained cool under pressure, was vulnerable, easy on the eyes, and we are able to care for her character, the only time she seemed to suffer, was when she had to spurt out some bad dialog here and there, but that wasn't very often, she was wonderful!. Benno Fürmann is excellent as the psycho killer, he was simply chilling, and wonderfully OTT, he really gave me the creeps, and was one effective killer!. Anna Loos played her role very well, as the smart slut, I dug her. Sebastian Blomberg was great here as Caspar, he was quite likable, and had a mysterious character,his chemistry with Potente was also on, and there was a great twists involving him at the end. Holger Speckhahn was good as the Idiot Phil and did his job well. Traugott Buhre is good as Prof. Grombek. Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey was great as David, he had a really cool character, and I wish he didn't get killed of so soon. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall I highly recommend this great German slasher!. ***1/2 out of 5
Write a negative movie review.

Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.

It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.

In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This BRASS EYE special PAEDO-GEDDON was swamped by complaints ( More on that later ) when it was broadcast in 2001 following a national debate around a possible " Sarah`s law " following the abduction and murder of school girl Sarah Payne . In fact it`s scheduling was delayed while Phil Collins took legal advice after he found out he`d been fooled by the show`s maker Chris Morris into a starting a campaign entitled Nonce-sense

If truth be told this show is probably more remembered for the controversy than the content which is in very poor taste but I do confess that I laughed out loud . The edition centres around paedophiles and how society treats both them and their victims . Chris Morris plays the presenter who tells the audience that an infamous paedophile has been launched into space then confesses that an eight year old child has accidentally been placed into the capsule along with the paedophile . Cue the child`s frightened screams . Like I said very poor taste 

Other highlights of the show include Dr Fox giving a scientific lecture that paedophiles share an identical nervous system to crabs ( " No one knows this but it`s a scientific fact " ) Labour MP Barbara Follet giving a public warning about equipment paedophiles put on their genitals while surfing the net and Kate Thornton warning viewers that paedophiles can send gas through the internet which makes young children suseptable to sexual predators including one victim " Who was once a shy innocent child and who now has the sexuality of a sixty year old Colonel " . Morris also shows a police officer in the child protection squad a serious of photos wanting to know if they`re classed as obscene . The photos included Barbie surrounded by a marital aids and a composite photo featuring a young boys head , a dog`s body and an erect penis that could only have belonged to John Holmes . Hey I never said this show was tasteful did I ? 

It`s impossible to mention PAEDO-GEDDON without the hypocritical fall out that surrounded it where politicians , childrens organizations and policemen rushed to condemn the show for making fun of a very serious subject . The show was poor taste despite me laughing all the way through it but it`s a biting satire . Perhaps the critics should take a long hard look in the mirror where a liberal elite allows convicted paedophile slime to walk around the streets of Britain before they criticise a mere TV show for exacerbating tensions .
What a ridiculous waste of time and money!!!! This movie was the biggest loser of the year. All the hype was a warning. I am disappointed for Julia Roberts, by far she is the most talented cast member. I think her ability to truly act carried the film. The buddy buddy boys club was a little too phony, and to add insult to injury why bother to cast Catherine Zeta Jones? She only has the ability to ruin a film. She lacks the ability to have on screen chemistry with anyone, not to mention she lacks the ability to act. She lacks chemistry with the other characters: kind of reminiscent of "America's Sweetheart's". She made "The Terminal" terminal. This movie is headed nowhere, what a shame, please please don't tell me "13" is on the way!

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

negative