cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
OZ is an old TV series released by HBO. It shows the life in one security prison called Oswald, but the main plot is focused on Emerald City, which is one of the prison levels.

Oz have an amazing plot and an outstanding cast! There are many of characters and almost all of them are very interesting. Basically they are divided in groups (gangs), the Sicilians, the Black people, the Aryans, the Gays, the Latinos and many others who doesn't have any specific group, but deal with many others like Ryan O'Reily (The Irish).

The plot is very well built, there are a lot of conspiracy inside, a lot of fight for the power. But all of this is not just exposed in form of violence, all is very intelligent and smart, nothing happens without a reason, all is connected and very interesting to guess! I really love this series, and who wanna see something intelligent, very well produced with a very good cast and performances, MUST see OZ!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.

I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I Love this movie! I know some people might say that it was not a great movie, but I really disagree. The comedy is classic Mel Brooks style and the actors were superbly chosen. This was my first exposure to Cary Elwes, and Dave Chappelle and what a first impression they made. Cary Elwes shines as Robin Hood, the only British Robin Hood mind you. He has great comedic timing and the right attitude for this type of film. Dave Chappelle is obviously much bigger now, but at the time this was his first movie and he did an outstanding job as Achoo. The characters were all very well planned out and all added their own little quirks to the movie. I highly recommend that you rent this movie and enjoy it with a nice bowl of popcorn and some close friends!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I saw Forgiving the Franklins at a Paramount screening and loved it I have to be honest I really didn't want to go and I had become quite jaded about the movies being made today I have to tell you Forgiving The Franklins was fresh and wonderfully put together I laughed my ass off it was great story telling I could not believe two guys shot this and put the whole thing together. I thought if these guys can do a movie like this with this budget imagine what they could do with big money behind them. And then I thought be the jaded guy Iam the studios would probably f...it up anyway. That being said thanks guys I got lost and in your film and that's why I go to the movies to forget the world for a couple of hours.
Write a negative movie review.

Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.
Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Frantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise "Son In Law" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes "Jury Duty" seem like "Gone with the Wind". - MERK
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This review contains a SPOILER---

The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the "People's hero" at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's "Sir", the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.

Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.

Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.

It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.

From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.

Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.
What's an example of a movie review?

Where to start?? I think only three other films have led me to post a review on IMDb, and all of those were positive. As for this..?

Mind-blowingly, hideously, tragically, embarrassingly, catastrophically, stupidly, irritatingly, completely and utterly beyond awful.

I am STUNNED this got made, never mind given a theatrical release. I think I am literally in shock.

I'm no "snob". I didn't expect beautiful film-making or intense character-depth, but this is truly beyond a joke. We simply MUST demand more from the films we see.

Avoid. Like the Black Death.
Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.

He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.

The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.

Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.

I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.

I found "Strange Fruit" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.

The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!

Taut and suspenseful throughout, "Strange Fruit" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.

I hope "Strange Fruit" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.

Highly Recommended: 7/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm guessing that the folks talking up this drivel are cronies of the director or something. This is bad, and not in the Michael Jackson song kind of way. To compare the pacing of this movie to the progress of a snail would be to insult the snail. This movie limps along for what seems like an eternity, all to introduce us to some un-scary zombie kids with silly makeup and some sort of vendetta, or thirst for blood, or whatever. Believe me, you won't care. The thought alone that Mom would move her two daughters into this dilapidated and FILTHY home is absurd. And worse, I found myself simply not caring. Backstory about the zombie kids? Snore. Endangerment of Mom and/or daughters? Don't care.

In short, WOW was this dull. Don't bother.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.

Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.
On a routine mission in Iraq a group of Delta soldiers recover a computer hard drive from an Alqueda training camp detailing the location of weapons specialist Dr Walsh. After witnessing the termination of his top secret weapons development program Dr Walsh finds an alternative funding source and sets up a new research facility deep in the notorious Belzan forest in Chechnya where he is developing weapons and selling them to Chechnyan rebels.The team of Deltas is sent on a black ops mission to retrieve the doctor and his technology before the Russians find him and his lab.What the Delta team soon discover is that the doctors latest weapons is a flock of large carnivorous bats that have been genetically altered to develop a taste for human flesh. I found this movie to be much better than what I was expecting.There is lots of action and lots of blood. Its more or less what you would expect from a creature feature. The acting isn't great but its passable. I have certainly seen worse.Overall its an enjoyable movie for what it is. A good popcorn movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First, a word of caution. The DVD box describes this film as a comedy. I don't think that was the intention of anyone connected with the film other than some marketing morons. While light and a little bit funny in places, it is NOT a comedy and if you expect that you will be disappointed.

I had never even heard of this film and had absolutely no expectations one way or the other. Considering that the other two DVDs I picked up were big disappointments, I was so happy when I saw this film. The acting, writing and direction were excellent. The story itself definitely interested me, as you don't usually see films about the final month of France before the Nazi takeover in 1940. It gave some insight into the parasites that gave up so quickly and agreed to partitioning their beloved country. Along the way, there are plots involving a selfish and weak actress played very well by Isabelle Adjani--who looks marvelous after all these years. She kills an ex-lover and then finds a poor sap to take the fall. This sap escapes from prison and finds her--with another lover--a high government official and weasel played by Gerard Depardieu. In addition, a subplot about a Jewish physicist trying to smuggle deuterium out of the country is introduced and eventually this becomes the main plot. The story has a lot of nice twists and turns, a light sense of humor (without trying to be a comedy) and some genuine suspenseful moments. Together, they create a nice package this is sure to please.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through "The L word" websites. The storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking "Lesbian in Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and movies that go no where"

However, during Christmas my local DVD store gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more colourful

This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take them home, keep them close. 

Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her "Family" of pick-pockets. Little did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house. 

Enter Mr Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud. 

And things would be simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, "Oh my god do i like girls" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm. 

Weeks have passed since i watched "Fingersmith", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and Sue's words still warm my heart "You pearl, you pearl, you pearl", she said. And such pearl it is.
Determine the sentiment:

"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.

Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.

Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.) 

----------------------------- SPOILER 

I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)

Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.

However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie/story missing.

Much of this movie is reminiscent of "Sex, Lies, and Video Tape." I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending. 

So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind.

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

positive
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.

If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.

Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): 

- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.

- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.

- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.

- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.

- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.

Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: 

- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.

- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a really good flick with awesome humor. Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie. In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well. I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it. Good directing, good script, worth renting.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with "the Fifth Element" (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, "le Dernier Combat" reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).

There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.

The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: "Force Majeure" (1989), "Simple Mortel" (1991), "ma Petite Entreprise" (1999) or "Filles Uniques" (2003).
What's an example of a movie review?

Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings) and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very much love.

The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very good)!
What's an example of a movie review?

Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie. 

I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it...
John Travolta reprises his role as Chili Palmer, Hollywood gangster, who now turns his eye to the music business. Using his "negotiation skills," he tries to run an independent record label with the wife of a murdered friend, played by Uma Thurman, and try to get his young singer (Christina Milian) a hit record.

Before I saw this sequel, I had heard that it was a terrible film. However, Be Cool is still an enjoyable comedy even if it's not as good as the original. The movie focuses on the music industry this time around instead of the movie industry. The music business is portrayed very poorly in the movie and they use a bunch of lame stereotypes. I can't tell if this was the intention or not since Get Shorty did a nice job of spoofing the movie industry. The same can't be said for the sequel and the attempts just come as lazy.

An impressive cast is what saves the movie from sinking. The best performance is given by The Rock and it's nice to see him in a different type of role. Vince Vaughn also gives a funny performance though he started to get annoying before the end. Surprisingly, Uma Thurman gives an average performance and I was expecting more from her. John Travolta returns as Chili and he does an okay job. His performance is kind of dull though. Christina Milian gives a horrible performance and she's also not that good of a singer. Cedric the Entertainer gives a good performance though he isn't in the film for very long. There are also a bunch of cameos including Steven Tyler and James Wood.

F. Gary Gray directs and he does a poor job. He just doesn't handle the film very well and the movie is kind of a mess. There was also a ton of product placement and it got annoying after awhile. Also at 118 minutes, the film is too long and there are a lot of slow spots. The film needed to be edited badly and it clearly wasn't. Fortunately for the film, the actors are able to rise above the weak direction and script and they deliver some funny scenes. Sometimes, the film tried too hard while other times it was actually pretty funny. Compared to the original, the sequel doesn't measure up well. However, Be Cool is a fairly harmless and forgettable comedy. In the end, Be Cool is worth a rental and that's it. Rating 6/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun. Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all ("Evil Dead II", "Night of the Creeps" and "Return of the Living Dead" for example) and then there were those movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a night with beer and friends. Movies like "Pieces" and "Blood Diner" stacked rental shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie "Night of the Demons" is a part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body, but dammit if you don't have a good time.

The plot is so simplistic it just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and co. decide to throw a séance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's "Arrested Development" character Gob would call it, a "Huge Mistake," because a demonic force soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well.

Take "The Evil Dead", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and your average dumb dead teen flick, throw them in a blender, and "Night of the Demons" is what you get. The movie is anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why? 

Well for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously, yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact. It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more.

It might not be a classic, but "Night of the Demons" is a good example of horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser.
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was one of the first color films I have seen at the cinema when I was a child. It is good to remember it. The girl, Liz Taylor, who later became a beautiful woman, starred together with the tiny and excellent actor Mickey Rooney. The content of the film plot is good for all ages, good wills and behavior. Good ethics of Velvet's parents, particularly her mother is something to take into account. Our generations should be well educated and this film may help to this purpose. Velvet loves the horses and racing them, and Mi Taylor (Rooney) brought her to an international horse racing competition in England, where at the end the young Velvet won, but was disqualified because of being female.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.

Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.

Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.

Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.

Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.

My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...

Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into one.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

i first saw this short when i bought a random DVD of short films a while ago. this is the only short on the DVD i liked, but i don't just like it i love it... if you spend any amount of time with me, you will see it. it is beautiful, simple and passionate, no bells, no whistles - it could have been done with a sharpie (but don't get me wrong, the animation is elegant and insightful - this person clearly spent plenty of time with cats - but it is simply black and white) and then there is writing and the music... it is simply beautiful.

i eat chocolate, drink wine and watch it over and over again...

nothing else matters, i wait for Pedro Serrazina to come up with something else.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This this coming of age dramedy set in Chicago in the early 60's, we follow a group of highschool friends as they navigate through the ups and downs of their lives. The two central characters are Leroy "Preach" Jackson (Turman) and his best friend Richard "Cochise" Morris (Hilton-Jacobs.) Both of these boys have promising futures. Preach is a great writer but a lazy student, and Cochise has just received a college scholarship for basketball. When they're not hanging out at the local diner shooting craps with their friends, or hanging out at a friends house or chasing girls, they're skipping school, riding the trains through Chicago or going to quarter parties on the weekends.

Things go wrong when Preach and Cochise make the mistake of getting involved with two hoods and go joyriding in a stolen car. The police pursue them and they are arrested. But thanks to the efforts of a concerned teacher (SNL's Garrett Morris) they are released. But the two hoods are not, and vow to get revenge on Preach and Cochise, thinking they blamed the whole thing on them.

This movie is very episodic, but it still works because thats what life is, a series of episodes. Some funny, some sad, some romantic, some bizarre. The film never gets boring because all the characters are so well played and realistic, and the situations are all believable and relatable. Like Preach romantically pursuing a beautiful girl, or a party turning violent when some asshole decides to start a fight, or dealing with a bratty younger sibling. But even when a situation isn't personally relatable, like the guys pretending to be undercover cops to con a hooker out of some money so they could get all their friends into a movie, the sequence is still hilarious.

'Cooley High' was the basis for the classic 70's sitcom 'What's Happenin!' which aired on ABC from 1976-1979. Even though the show is most famous for the character Rerun, he is not in this film, nor is there any character remotely like him. The humor of that show was very broad, but still funny. The humor of 'Cooley High' is truer to life, and thus more entertaining.

Additionally, the soundtrack is wonderful. Classic songs from that period by Diana Ross & The Supremes, The Temptations, Martha & the Vandellas, and Smokey Robinson play throughout the film, adding to the fun, youthful, exuberant tone of the film.
This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.) 

What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the "US will save the world" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the "sad" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.

The one good part of this movie: "American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!"