cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches "Strangers on a Train" and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.

"Throw Momma from the Train" is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is "Strangers on a Train", but there are jokes with "Vertigo" (with the spinning camera), "Family Plot" (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Jogue a Mamãe do Trem" ("Throw Momma from the Train")
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Film certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium. Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people actually miss the tiresome clichés of romance disguised as tension between the leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for those trying to make film something it's not.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.

Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.

MISS AT ALL COSTS
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!

This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's "Rosebud" object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: "doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from "K10C". When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!

The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in "Titanic's" very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production! 

Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... "dead" everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, "real" actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.

Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.

The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.

I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.
Determine the sentiment:

This tearful movie about a sister and her battle to save as many souls as she can is very moving. The film does well in picking up the characters and showing how Sister Helen deals with each.

A wonderful journey from life to death.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Okay, it was very good...but Best Picture? Please, not even close. Munich was better, Capote was much better, Good Night and Good Luck was much better...Brokeback Mountain - well, that should have won! The Academy voters seem to act like the current day Democrats - please just a little of everyone, but don't dare take any concrete positions. That's why we have a complete moron in office in the US.

This has been the WORST AA presentation ... and forget 1987 ... since way before that. Hollywood is so afraid of it's bottom line, that it can't be set "straight". Many voters apparently didn't even see Brokeback Mountain. Get real and get with it.

This was the most pathetic year since I have been watching in the mid- 60's and I was only two.

Wake up, whoever you are. Hollywood IS mainstream, and that's what happened to the Box Office in 2005. King Kong, the last Star Wars film, another Batman film, a re-make or whatever of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and much more to come in 2006.

At least there were original best pictures, i.e. Munich, but heard that one before, Capote - great; Katherine Keener should have won, even though now we know Reese can sing like a Cash/Carter, etc., Syriana was a much better picture than Crash. That film has been done, since the early 1960's and we have to make that the best film? What a horrible Oscar night and a horrible year to end with in 2005 and another boring year in 2006. At least the BAFTA for best picture went to Brokeback, and what about the horrible song that won? Pathetic. I think we only have about 20 years left as America or the USA, before someone comes in and changes up things a bit. Maybe it will be China since they own so much of this country ... or India, because they have all the high-tech jobs and are the largest democratic country in the entire world.

America has become the land of the fat, the pathetic, and the stupid. Trash can be found in more places than Florida, West Virgina, South Dakota, and in the mid-West.

Drive-through a local McDonald's or Burger King for goodness sake. Order all you want until you get a heart attack. Put yourself out of your misery.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.

However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.

Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.

These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.

Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.

Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.
Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.

Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.

Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.

Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.

In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.

There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.

Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.

Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.

And it all comes out like this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Perry Mason: The Case of the Fatal Fashion finds Perry and Della Street in New York getting an award from the American Bar Association. An undefeated trial record ought to get some recognition I would think. Anyway a friend of Della's, fashion editor Diana Muldaur gets herself arrested for the murder of a rival, Valerie Harper and in fact Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale witness a confrontation between the two at a posh eatery.

These two rivals have a thing going that makes Hedda and Louella look like school girls. Of course Harper has a number of other people who loved her equally as much.

The same perpetrator also ran down a fashion designer who could have exposed the individual. This throws Perry with his trusty investigative lawyer, William Moses in an alliance with some mobsters. Seems that the designer was a cousin of a mob boss who wants also to mete out some justice in their usual manner. 

One thing I could not get is when Moses and mobster Robert Clohessy track down the perpetrator I cannot believe that the police were also not vigorously pursuing the case. Of course Clohessy has some access to sources that the cops just don't have.

But the best part of this particular Mason entry is Scott Baio as the young rather full of himself Assistant District Attorney introducing himself to Raymond Burr saying how he studied all of his cases and looked forward to beating him. Foolish Boy.

In fact my favorite scene is Burr and Baio at a sidebar with the judge. Baio was wanting to reopen his case and add a witness and came ready and prepared with precedents. Burr catches him off guard and says he has no objection to the new witness and then proceeds to demolish the witness on cross examination. Absolutely priceless.

Scott Baio is the best thing in this particular Perry Mason movie and it should be seen for him alone if nothing else.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.

Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...

Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters  like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.
I liked this probably slightly more than Terror by Night though not enough to give it the extra *. The beginning is just brilliant, as we peek in on Nazi agents scheming to get their hands on a new bomb sight and its inventor in a small Swiss village, only to be foiled by a disguised Holmes who spirits the scientist back to London. Once there, he does everything he can to keep the scientist from falling into the hands of the man behind it all -- not Hitler, but worse: Holmes' arch-enemy Moriarty. Of course the scientist disappears, leaving a tantalizing coded note, and Holmes goes in pursuit, once again in disguise. A climax in Moriarty's dockside lair is suitably exciting, and we can all guess that all ends well, can't we? Slightly over-the-top patriotic message as the credits roll. Now that I think of it, the fine sense of place despite the obvious sets, Rathbone's use of disguise and the way in which so much plot is crammed into just over an hour -- what the heck it gets that extra * and is my favorite of the 5 Rathbone/Bruce films I've seen to date.

Watched on DVD, part of the "50 Mystery Classics" set from Mill Creek Entertainment. Many of the transfers on these el cheapo box sets are of very poor quality, but Holmes fans take note that the Rathbone/Bruce films (there are 4 on this set) are all quite watchable and reasonably sharp.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the "so called ace" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

If it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!

The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up "on the way"???).

To cut a tooo long story short:

It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this "mentally challenged" script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie. 

Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes. 

The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.
Write a positive movie review.

Wonderful movie. Adult content. Lots of erotic scenes plus excellent music and dance scenes. My wife and I absolutely loved this movie and wish they'd make more like it.
Determine the sentiment:

I saw Chomps during the - approximately - 2 days of its theatrical release. It is a delightfully cute and funny movie in the spirit of 'Benji' though much improved and focused more on the actors than the dogs. The simple portrayal of life difficulties in a humorous way, followed by the bullies and villains getting their just deserts, is both sympathetic and heartwarming. It is also thought provoking. With deft subtleness this movie affects ones awareness of cruelty, personal behavior, and bullying. Movies have different genera's and different purposes. This movie, which is delightful to all ages, offers an interesting humorous look into our own experiences. Everyone will recognize personality and behaviors types of themselves and others. Everyone will see the humor. The humor makes the move enjoyable and brings understanding of life situations to a new level. 

For lighthearted laughter and a 'feel good' movie Chomps is an excellent choice. Memorable.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie has remained in my mind for years as one of the best made-for-TV movie mysteries I've ever seen. The acting is superb. I've seen it twice and still am puzzled at some parts. I'd love to have a copy so I can play certain parts over and over again. I am interested in buying a copy of this movie, but cannot find it anywhere.I am wondering if if anyone has any suggestions how to find it? I've tried e-bay, Amazon.com, Internet searches, and am completely frustrated. I've not seen it on Turner Classic Movies, nor on American Movie Classics and I have even put out fliers in our community asking if anyone has a copy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Like a few people I know, I came in late on 'Stingers'; not until 2000. Three years later there is no way I'd miss an episode. The show really is that good and has, for a better word, maintained its integrity, unlike 'Blue Heelers', for example. The crime is the thing; personal lives are there but only wheeled out when affecting an investigation! When Gary Sweet was brought in, some fans seemed worried, but he's really fitted in well, which didn't surprise me. Gary could measure up to any British or US actor in a similar series. The cast changes occasionally but each change brings something new and fresh. With arguably Australia's finest crew behind the scenes, 'Stingers' will continue to remain a cutting edge drama series.
Determine the sentiment:

I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy/slapstick and focused on the dramatic/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.

The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.

3/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Clubbed" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.

There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.

Character development does not exist in "Clubbed". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film to me deserves a lot of praise, because even though I am not a surfer or skater, I remained inspired throughout the whole documentary.

The depth of history and development of these two extreme sports emphasised what they were able to do for two groups of individuals. The dedication that these individuals had/have is truly inspiring and it was because of them that others can now enjoy and do what these guys founded.

Unlike most other documentaries, this one was cleverly put together, the amount of footage that was recorded and survived throughout the decades is outstanding and it was because of this that some of the greatest editing I have ever seen was put together and resulted in the subject remaining focused. Without the urge for them to retort to recent footage of the more famous surfers and skaters that remains popular today.

The film explores areas such as the success, such accomplishing new tricks, winning competitions and gathering fame. As well as failures such as injury or burning out.

It was also fulfilling to hear the experiences come from the skaters and surfers themselves and not from second hand information. This resulted in a better picture to be drawn.

Overall, a truly outstanding effort.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.

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

negative
There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!

This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.

Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.

Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.

Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.

Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).

Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Kid Power Hour featured two segments: Hero High and Shazam. let's start with Hero High.

Hero High was intended to be a new Archies cartoon, featuring their superhero identities: Pureheart the Powerful (Archie), Captain Hero (Jughead), Superteen (Betty), and Evilheart (Reggie). However, Filmation couldn't get the rights to do it so they tweaked it a bit and came up with this. Here's the breakdown of characters: Captain California (Archie), Glorious Gal (Betty), Weatherman (Jughead), Dirty Trixie (Veronica), Rex Ruthless (Reggie), Principal Samson (Mr weatherbee) and Miss Grimm (Miss Grundy). The show featured live action sketches, as well as cartoon adventures. The humor was the typical lame Filmation jokes, but at least it had a sense of fun about it. It was entertaining enough for kids, though not quite up to previous standards.

The other segment was Shazam!, which was very faithful to the comics, unlike the previous live action show. All of the major villains made appearances, as well as the entire Marvel Family (including Freckles Marvel, in at least one episode). Uncle Dudley had the correct WC Fields voice and shady character, as well as his perpetually acting up "Shazambago". Burr Middleton, a veteran of 70's TV shows, like Fish, voiced the Big Red Cheese, while Alan Oppenheimer (Rudy Wells in the early 6 Million Dollar Man episodes and voice of Skeletor in He-Man) handled Dr. Sivana.

The Marvels had always had a sense of whimsy to them, so little alteration was required for their adventures, to meet the Broadcast Standards and Practices requirements (the censors). As such, the stories were very imaginative and inventive. Amongst the villains who appeared were: Dr. Sivana, Black Adam, Mr. Atom, Mr. Mind, Aunt Minerva, Ibac, and the crocodile creatures. Mr. Tawky Tawny also made his on screen debut.

Hero High is due to be released from BCI, but Shazam! is still in limbo, as well as the live-action show. Hopefully, the proposed movie will help shake them loose on DVD. It is well worth watching and deserving of DVD treatment.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I don't know how this movie has received so many positive comments. One can call it "artistic" and "beautifully filmed", but those things don't make up for the empty plot that was filled with sexual innuendos. I wish I had not wasted my time to watch this movie. Rather than being biographical, it was a poor excuse for promoting strange and lewd behavior. It was just another Hollywood attempt to convince us that that kind of life is normal and OK. From the very beginning I asked my self what was the point of this movie,and I continued watching, hoping that it would change and was quite disappointed that it continued in the same vein. I am so glad I did not spend the money to see this in a theater!

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

negative
this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Unlike some of the reviews written here, I didn't hate this movie. It is a movie that COULD have been much better than it was. Not Oscar material, true, but much better than it was.

I thought the plot had a good hook and through line. Granted, this movie was badly written. And TERRIBLY directed and produced. I mean, how many irrelevant flashbacks can you have? Why were we there? What exactly is the point of the opening sequence? It seems like the producer(s) watched American Beauty a few too many times and thought 'I'll use that in an action movie!' I thought the movie wasn't that badly acted. Wesley Snipes did a credible job, he just ran afoul of some bad direction. And once this movie hit the production room, things just got worse. The main actress, I think, had the same problems. Some of the other acting was suspect, yes, but it was a low-budget flick. Again, I would say it is the director's job to pick that up and correct it.

As an overall recommendation, I would agree with the first review I read that this movie is not worth seeing. Or maybe it is worth seeing, if you are a film student and want to see what NOT to do.

3/10, and that's giving it praise.
..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.

Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.

Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?! 

By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Miranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in "School of Rock" with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show "Drake and Josh" and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, "The Amanda Show".

"iCarly" is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called "iCarly". Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in "Drake and Josh" as Crazy Steve.

Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying "iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!" and a majority of gigs that were used in "Drake and Josh", if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as "You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?" "No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!" Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in "Drake and Josh" and "Ned's Declassified" that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.

The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like "Random Dancing!"? And it just gets worse from there.

In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his "protective older brother" role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.

Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with "Drake and Josh" so it's a real disappointment that "iCarly" is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save "iCarly" from being as horrible as it is.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I find it hard to believe that this movie has such a low rating. It is arguably one of the best comedies ever made, and surely the best Bollywood comedy of the 90s. The film did not do too well on the box office and people had diametrically opposite reactions after seeing it. My guess is most people didn't expect it to be an all-out comedy and were expecting a regular movie. If you love comedies, this is a must-see. And Aamir Khan is outstanding.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: 

I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.

Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.

What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.

I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -

- and the director crosses the line.

The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.

I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off.
I gave this 8 stars out of a possible 10. It had an excellent plot, and Peter Coyote and Michele Lee, as well as the rest of the cast, did their parts well.

Both Peter and Michele were too long in the tooth for the ages their characters were supposed to be, and their children in the film, obviously would have been better suited being their grandchildren.

I missed the first ten minutes of this film, so I don't know just how that body turned up after 25 years and got traced back to Denny Traynor (Peter Coyote's character), but I had no difficulty picking up on the storyline.

Barbara Traynor (Michele Lee) is stunned when her long-time husband, Denny is arrested for a murder in Oregon some 25 years previous, a state Denny claims he was never in.

However, as evidence piles up against Denny, his story changes. Then his story changes again and yet again, until Barbara doesn't know what to believe.

Barbara makes up her mind, however, to get to the bottom of the mystery whirling around the fateful time Denny and a young girl named Sherry accepted a ride from a stranger named Wayne Kennedy, that ended in murder.

I found the film entertaining, well paced, and it kept me guessing as to what had really happened between those three people.

From what I saw during the closing credits, this seemed to be based on a true story.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive