cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
The Australian public and the Australian film industry are often heard to complain that there are not enough great Aussie films around, or that they are all the same.

Well in this case this film is not a carbon copy of other Australian films. It is unique - it will make you laugh out-loud, it will make you cry and it will make you feel really good about yourself.

The casting of this film is superb and the acting is second to none. The script and the photography (colour/light etc) is wonderful. But more important this is a great film. I don't want to talk about the plot as I think it is always best to see a film knowing as little about it as possible. Suffice to say this film will appeal to a wide range of audiences. Take your girlfriend, take your Mum, take your friends - for a great evening out.

10/10!!!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.

This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.

It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.

Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.

The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.

Really a too silly and lame movie.

4/10
Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.

I read "Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.

But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.

Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.

Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole "story" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.

Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?
Originally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got "this contains a very long word which is not allowed", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect. 

Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!

The pc police are everywhere.

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

negative
I was lucky enough to win free passes to the sneak preview of POD. Let me just tell you, from just the previews I was excited to see it! The movie absolutely rocked! What I really liked about it was the fact that JB was in his element. With other movies like "School of Rock," he does namby pamby music for kids and families, but this music is obviously all his.

I took my brother and sister with me to see it, and we laughed basically the entire time. There are a couple places where I wonder what the hell they were thinking, because some items are a little disjointed, but for the most part it was great. A lot of the time it didn't seem like a low-budget film, so that is a plus.

What I was most surprised about was Dave Grohl as Satan. That is f-ing hilarious! You honestly wouldn't know from seeing the film that that is him.

I say that if you are a rock fan and are into JB, KG, and/or Tenacious D, go see the film. Be prepared for a LOT of drug references, a LOT of four letter words and some skull shredding rock!

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining.
The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.

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

negative
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!

come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...

by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!

10/10*
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought "this has got to be the worse movie ever made" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is "when is this going to end?" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.

On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.

I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called "Dark Harvest". The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a "Straight To Video Independent Horror Film" Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the "kids" sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!

Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.

Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.
What's an example of a movie review?

Perfect double bill for the horribly corny "Beverly Hillbillies" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', "Son in Law". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' "Crawl" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky "Crawl" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious "fish out of water" results.

The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when "Crawl" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.

Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from "Crawl" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like "Crawl", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, "Son in Law" is right on the mark.

Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.
What's an example of a movie review?

I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.
I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.

Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.

There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.

Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.

5/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Hollow is a wonderful murder mystery that provides all you can expect from Agatha Christie and of course Poirot. It' s set on a country house on a weekend. As always all the guests are suspects and it's up to Poirot to figure out the truth. With movies like this it's always best not to give too much away so I'll stop here. What I loved in the `Hollow' was that it's a mystery the old fashioned way. When Poirot arrives everybody is around the body for example. Everybody seems to be the culprit. There's that suspicious look and the atmosphere is just perfect for the story.

You can expect a wonderful time giving guesses as to whom did it and how and why and maybe in the end even be surprised. A cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter night and you got a pretty enjoyable experience.

The actors are all very good. As a curiosity notice Edward Hardwicke who played Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes. Nice to see him after a few years. Suchet is amazing as always and fortunately is on screen most of the time.

I did find out who the murderer was but still it's not predictable and It's also very believable.

So in conclusion a great movie and as always a pleasure.


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

As if the world hadn't already got enough cheap Jaws imitations, writer Boaz Davidson decided to make the sequel to his ropey-but-reasonably-enjoyable creature-feature Octopus a complete rip-off of Spielberg's classic, right down to having a concerned cop who no-one believes, and a mayor more worried about his 4th July celebrations than people's lives.

Even in the hands of an extremely skilled director, it is unlikely that this derivative rubbish could have been anything other than hokey B-movie garbage, but with Yossi Wein (yes THE Yossi Wein!) calling the shots behind the camera, a man with a fraction of Mr.Spielberg's talent (I estimate about 1/10000th), Octopus 2 is guaranteed to be every bit as bad as one might imagine!

The predictable and extremely clichéd plot isn't worth describing in much detail (substitute Jaws' Amity Island with New York, and Bruce the Shark with a giant rubber octopus and you'll get the gist), although several points about the film are definitely worth mentioning, simply because they are so funny: all of the octopus attacks involve the actors struggling to make incredibly fake-looking giant tentacles look real, which is hilarious to behold; Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, unconvincingly stands in for New York, and overuse of stock footage makes the illusion even less convincing; best of all, a silly dream sequence that sees the rubber octopus attacking our hero atop the Statue of Liberty, is not only gut-bustingly stupid but also features some truly dreadful special effects.

Davidson's script also doesn't know when to quit: there are several points in this film at which it could've (and probably should've) ended, but the action goes on and on, with the octopus surviving several explosions, and causing a tunnel to collapse (trapping the film's love interest and a bunch of kids), before finally being blown to smithereens by the hero.

Sometimes very silly, always awful technically, but never actually scary, this STV stinker may find fans amongst those who actively seek out cinematic trash. Most normal people, however, would be advised to steer well clear.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What the hell is this!? That was my first reaction to this film (actually, my first reaction contained more swearing). This isn't Star Wars! Star Wars is space battles, this movie has none. Star Wars is the Force, this movie only has a retarded witch with a magic ring. Star Wars is lightsaber battles, this movie hasn't got any battle worth mentioning. Star Wars is humor, this movie isn't. Star Wars is a galaxy far, far away, this movie has HORSES in it!!! Besides all of this, how did Lucas get the insane idea to let a five year old baby do the leading role !? Big, big disappointment. Do you like Star Wars? Don't watch this! 1 out of 10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).

I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.

Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.

The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.

As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen it.
What's an example of a movie review?

An absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I came across The Last Stop one day at a video store and they were selling it for only $2. I decided to give it a try and bought it. It was pretty good, i enjoyed it. The story is about several people all caught in a cabin somewhere in nowhere because of a raging blizzard. There is a police officer, nancy,his ex girlfriend, two brothers that just got out of jail, a older man and his lover, a black man and the couple that owns the cabins and their retarted son that never speaks. Suddenly someone is found to be murdered and a bag full of cash is found. Everyone is a suspect. The Last Stop is a pretty good thriller, i would give it 8/10
Robert Florey and James Wong Howe gave this a frightening, Expressionistic look. Scenes are shot at weird angles -- especially scenes involving figurative and literal lady-killer Zachary Scott. His sociopathic behavior presages another superb, medium-budget movie, "The Stepfather," by more than two decades.

The entire cast is excellent, though (though no fault of her own) it's hard to think of Joyce Compton as anyone but the singer in "The Awful Truth.") Scott, Bennett, Emerson, DeCamp (especially, and though playing an older woman looking gorgeous) -- they couldn't have been topped.

Setting a creepy lodger-in-the-house-of women story against a background of psychiatrists is a risky trick that pays off beautifully. Nothing corny at all.beautifully. Nothing corny at all.

The resolution is a little pat, unfortunately. Not Emerson's getting together with Bennett. That makes sense. But Scott is dispatched too quickly. I seem him more as a Mr. Ripley character, who could have escaped everything -- the botulism, the murder rap, the jealous sisters -- and disappeared into the great world beyond this story. That would not have impeded the essentially happy ending of the secretary and her boss finally getting together.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM...

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

positive
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]

 Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle were in a rut. They basically had no life at all. All they did was lay around and count the ceiling tiles. Jon even organized his sock drawer according to color and fabric. He needed a life. So he consults a book on the subject that tells him to meet a woman. A singles' bar was a great place to start. Unfortunately, when the music started and Jon hit the dance floor, we see what made disco die: Jon killed it. Jon next tried to pick up girls at the video store. He ended up feeling down in the mouth. Literally. The laundromat was no prize either when Jon and his would-be date get a glimpse of each other's underwear. Jon tried to act all buff at the beach, but soon he angered a real buff guy, which left Jon feeling, once again, down in the mouth. Literally. Jon then tried to pick up girls walking and jogging by. No avail. Jon pulled out a guitar and sings the blues. Unfortunately when he mentioned his cat being fat, a fat man walked up and stomped Jon's guitar. It was hopeless.

 Fortunately for Jon, an ad flashed on the TV: an ad for Lorenzo's School for the Personality Impaired. It guaranteed a lifeless person to get a life in a few easy steps. Jon and Garfield attend the class. The building didn't exactly look the same way it did on TV, nor did Lorenzo act as peppy as he did on TV. Jon sat next to a pretty girl named Mona. So while Lorenzo taught his lessons of introducing yourself, checking your pulse, and pretending to speak a foreign language, Jon and Mona get to know one another. They leave together, forgetting all about Garfield. At home, Jon and Mona just sat on the porch and talked. Garfield was jealous of Mona for fear that she would take Jon away from him. Garfield envisioned the future: Jon and Mona get married, she moves in, and soon she gives birth to a little Arbuckle who is overjoyed at pulling Garfield's tale. Back to the present, Garfield would not stand for it. He tried to get Jon to get rid of Mona, until she started scratching behind his ears. But then Jon learned that Mona was allergic to cats. So that was basically the end of their relationship. But they still saw each other every now and then, and Garfield was sure to be with them.

 Another hilarious Garfield TV special! This one was made during the run of TV's Garfield and Friends. Garfield was slimmed down somewhat. SOMEwhat. Since hie early 1980's cartoons. The scenes of Jon trying to pick up chicks is funny, so is the one where the fat guy stomps on Jon's guitar. Good ol' Lorenzo Music is back as Garfield. Thom Huge is Jon. Frank Welker (The third man of 1,000 voices) is Lorenzo. And June Foray (The woman of 1,000 voices) is Mona. If you like Garfield, then I recommend you see Garfield Gets A Life today! It, along with Here Comes Garfield, and Garfield on the Town, were just released on DVD! So check them all out today! You are guaranteed a good time. Hey, has Garfield ever let you down before?

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

positive
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.

On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
All I can say after watching the DVDs of the first season is that I can not believe NBC "green-lighted" this show. It's so different than what's currently in vogue save for Lost. Those who miss the X-Files just may have a worthy successor. Not as mysterious or intense as Lost, I find it to be overall more entertaining.

This kind of extended story is hard to make. I mean it could degenerate into childish dribble if most of the elements do not cohere together. But cohere they do and I think the cast is excellent, the writing sharp, the location and props first rate, and the special effects very good for a television budget. Sure it pushes what is plausible, but as it does it never gets so silly as to insult your intelligence.

Bottomline is that this is great Sci-Fi drama for the entire family. I doubt it will be a classic with a long run like X-Files, but in the meantime I recommend getting the DVD if you missed it like I did the first time around. This fall my must see shows has just increased by one more series!

PS: I just heard it got axed from NBC...Here's hoping Sci-Fi picks it up.

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

positive
I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" stores, and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories. Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those stories onto Channel 13.

The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero (John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts looking into silencing the two amateur detectives.

It's not a bad film, although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair surprise later on.

But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together, and what the villain's motivations were.

Except for that and the lengthy time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a sudden renaissance in films based on her novels.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.

If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own. 

Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the "actors" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.

I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.
I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.

A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!

The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.

For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.

Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.

Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.

What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.

What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?

How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.

And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!

And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?

Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.

On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.

One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.

A mixed movie for sure.

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

negative
This movie moved much too slowly for my taste.The concept of the story is refreshingly different in that it explores the family dynamics of living with a mentally-retarded family member in a way that I have not previously seen on-screen.However,the execution of the concept was flawed.Each character was developed fully within the scene of her first appearance,then one had to endure the feeling that each character was treading water the rest of the way.That is,each character flailed about awkwardly in her interpersonal relationships with others in the movie,which I found to be a form of emotional and social retardation.I suppose this has artistic merit,given the irony that the story centers around an intellectually retarded individual surrounded by way above-average intelligence friends and family.The acting,however,was well-done without exception.I agree with other reviewers that the cinematography was beautiful.In summary,I think the film has strong artistic merit because of the fine acting and cinematography,but fails on an emotional level due to the shortcomings described.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.

I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.

I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.

Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.

Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet "monster"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching "Matlock" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

If Monte Hellman's legendary early 70's road movie masterpiece "Two-Lane Blacktop" had been done more like a stark, stripped-down, fiercely taut and straightforward brooding mood piece embellished upon by that distinctly mean'n'lean, rough'n'tough, very raw and ragged macho Australian mentality and topped off with a generous sprinkling of dour, despairing, no-hope-whatsoever end-of-the-road punk nihilism, it would undoubtedly be much similar to this jarringly bleak and atmospheric knockout.

Nice guy factory worker Mike (an appealingly scruffy Terry Serio) runs afoul of sneering, shades-wearing fascist car race champ Fox (a perfectly hateful Richard Moir) when he steals Fox's fetching model girlfriend Julie (the lovely Deborah Conway) away from him. Mike and Fox begin competing in increasingly lethal races in which the stakes become higher and higher with each successive bout, finally culminating in an especially pulse-pounding all-or-nothing race with only one true winner allowed. Mike, assisted by his worried, but loyal Italian mechanic pal Tony (a splendidly smooth turn by Vangelis Mourikis) and tutored by blind, supremely hip 50's-style greaser rebel (marvelously essayed with maximum coolness by Max Cullen), willingly puts his life on the line for the sake of his reputation, the affection of his old lady, the money, and, most importantly, for the chance to topple the haughty Fox from his gloating, glowering thrown. Directed with utmost gravity and intensity by John Clark, written to laconically right-on perfection by Barry Tomblim, with a shivery, flesh-crawling synthesizer score by Peter Crosbie and spare, unadorned cinematography by David Gribble, this authentically gnarly early 80's item presents the concept of racing cars as not only a funky alternate lifestyle, but also an all-consuming obsession and reason for living (it's the sole thing most of the film's characters are really passionate about) with a remarkably astute and unblinking eye. Complete with a harrowing downbeat ending and unsparingly grim central message about the bitter price one pays for being top dog, this riveting depiction of a dead-end existence rates as an extraordinary cinematic achievement.