cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...

If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...

A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.

I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...


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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.
It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film. 

Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race. 

Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Like the beauty of the jungle, Jessica Alba's gorgeous smile and sultry looks loom over the film, but alas they are the only two things worth watching this film for. When in theory we should be watching for the narrative.

The plot is thin on the ground, and hard to believe. As beautiful as Jessica Alba is, she doesn't add any of the spark that she injected into the credible 'Dark Angel' series. Since Dark Angel it seems that Alba has been reduced to mere eye candy(but what eye candy!), and is the sole reason for putting her into films.

The concept of the sleeping dictionary is daft and implausible, with little character development (or character for that matter) to make us want to undertake the 109 minutes run time with this world. Despite the films short running time, it still manages to feel to long and too laboured.

It seems a shame that such talent such as Brenda Blethyn, Emily Mortimer, Bob Hoskins are wasted on a threadbare narrative which barely raises a pulse. This film seriously misses a trick, an exotic setting, a more than capable cast, with lovely cinematography, and a chance to utilise the themes and the dualistic concepts of 'civilisation'. But there is little narrative to speak of, no drama, no sense we are watching a story of love, more a story of lust and woman happy to please men without question. Lets be honest, if Jessica Alba was freely allowing you to sleep with her, do you seriously think you'd be able to concentrate on learning a tribal language? Therein lies the great problem, both in suspension of disbelief, and also what the female characters are limited and reduced to. Take for example the fact that Jessica alba's character undergoes the mental and physical tribulation of pregnancy and birth to her forbidden love, yet all we see is her looking lovely and curvy one minute, then lovely and curvy, with a baby, the next.

It's a sorry state of affairs to see a film with promise not live up to anything near it's potential. I could write endlessly of the films flaws, but it pains me to do so. The film looks good, the premise could have been made into a lovely film, but sadly it wasn't to be.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.

The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.

Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.

Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is specially for children and I think they will enjoy the movie. For older than 10 the movie is not great but Hilary Swank played very well and without her the movie is very bad but now it gets a 7.

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

positive
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.

Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.

And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.

The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.

For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.

It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.

Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.

When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.

Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.

So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.

It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.

My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

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

negative
This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was written by Einar Már Guðmundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in Reykjavík and the main character, Páll is young and having a good life with his girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental Hospital called "Kleppur" and there you get to see some great characters like Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and Óli who thinks that he writes all the " The Beatles" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigurðusson who has the role of the main character Páll does is so work so well that it leaves you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURRÓS and just for the music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors "in the mood". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their "sincere moments." This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have seen this movie but not in a single sitting. What happens it that it is playing on the TV, I watch for a few minutes, find that I have take all that I can take and then leave the room. During those few minutes I do not laugh once, experience no pleasure in what I am viewing, and find myself more depressed that angry. Interestingly, I am told the psychological states are incompatible, that is, one cannot be angry and depressed at the same time. This movie tests that theory.

I think part of the problem is that I spent nearly ten years in Chicago so as I am watching the scenes I am thinking of my own experiences in that rotten town and thus I am clearly bringing a lot of my baggage to the piece. It is entirely possible, I am willing to concede, that if you are not a Chicago denizen you will find the piece amusing. If so, I envy you.

And yet. John Hughes set his films in Chicago and those movies worked for me. I think the difference is that Hughes was a first rate writer. I think it obvious he knew how to comically balance his situations, as well as make his characters both sympathetic and believable. In a comedy (as distinguished from a farce) this balance vital. And it is not easy to achieve. If it was everyone would be making great movies and we would not have to fret as we do in the real world wondering when genius will ever appear. In "Adventures in Babysitting," it doesn't. I hated those characters. 

There is a difference, profound and real, between sympathetic and simply pathetic.

For me every scene in this movie is a clunker. There is no humor, no humanity, no people one can recognize. Just actors reading their lines as if it all they can do to restrain themselves from screaming them out, certain that finally hilarity will ensue, this time for sure! It's like watching the antics of very bad comedians. It's embarrassing and after a while, usually at the point when I get up and leave, I start to feel pity for all concerned, which is a kind of emotional connection, I suppose. Elizabeth Shue is terrible. She doesn't act, certainly not act comically, and it's entirely possible she can't. But lord how she tries. She looks older than 17, and acts way younger like a seven-year old straining in a school play certain that this is how one gets an award. And she is not alone. It is as if everyone cannot relax and let the tale flow. As if everyone simply has no idea what they are doing. 

Now, this was an early effort for Chris Columbus and he clearly would improve and having better writers (e.g. John Hughes himself) certainly helped, so perhaps some forgiveness is in order. But the film just reeks of desperation. Yet like I said it may work for some. If any of the above appeals to you, and it clearly did some of the reviewers, then go get the DVD and knock yourself out. Otherwise, avoid this mess like you would a dark Chicago alley where as you hurry by you can only see shadows and hear muttered threats.
Nothing more than a soccer knock-off of The Mighty Ducks, this film proved to be annoying in most aspects. This was one of those times where you're parents ask you to take your younger siblings just so they don't have to deal with them for a few hours. To say the least, my younger sisters liked it, but it proved to be too much like the far superior Mighty Ducks. Oh well, at least Olivia d'Abo was hot and Steve Guttenberg still had a job at that point in time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Based on the actual event , this epic, is set in the year 221 B.C and tells the true story of the unification of China. Action packed and filled with intrigue, passion, betrayals and unforgettable battle sequences, it held my attention throughout in spite of its 160 minute length.

The king, Ying Zeng, played by Li Xuejian is obsessed with unifying the seven kingdoms of China and becoming its first Emperor. His lover, Lady Zhao, played by the beautiful actress Gong Li, devises a plot whereby she will travel to the neighboring kingdom of Yan to set a fake assassination plot in motion which will give the king an excuse to invade Yan. However, she falls in love with the assassin as the king becomes more and more ruthless.

There are subplots, and tragedy and constant high drama. There are scenes of great beauty and of abject cruelty. There is great cinematography and brilliant use of physical space.

The deep characterization made me think of Shakespeare. And tragic events that call to mind Greek drama. And yet it is totally Chinese as it deals with age-old questions of whether the ends justify the means. And raises the questions dealing with life and death and good and evil and all the blurred edges in between.

It is the story of individuals against the backdrop of history, a history that has shaped China for the past two thousand years. I was swept up in the story as well as the moral questions raised. There are no easy answers and this was one of the strengths of the movie.

Recommended. But be prepared for the violence and gore.


What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In reply to "State of Confusion" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this "monster" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.

Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.

And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.

Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.

There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trashjust another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Shuttle" is/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say "throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time.

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

negative
Here we have a miniseries, which revels in in its flaws, and doesn't make us cringe because of them...it is excellent story-telling, which fuses black comedy, mateship (in a positive way), the pathetic waste of war, without the sheer unadulterated manipulation of a con-job like Life is Beautiful...it is an entertainment, not the meaning of life...and showcases the talents of actors both young and old...give it a go and tell us what you think...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.

The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.

When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot. 

All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.

It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay. 

And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I cringed when I heard the first canned laugh track in the first few seconds of the show but yet I gave it a chance. You KNOW when someone offers a line which is only slightly amusing and you hear an obviously fake laugh track explode in uproarious laughter that it's a show aimed at morons who need to be told "yes, it's funny, go ahead and laugh".

Ugh. I couldn't stand this show as it revealed itself. I can't speak for everyone - after all some people actually like that IDIOTIC show "Stacked" (which makes me wish to vomit). I can imagine those who like "Stacked" might actually like this drivel, too. Some people still get a kick out of the old "pull my finger" gag. To me, this show is just about as witty - and just about as original.

The themes were old and tired. The jokes were lame and hackneyed. The characters were ones we've seen everywhere before - and the worst of any you might imagine.

So... if you like things like burping words and neighbors who say "pull my finger"... you might actually like this show. Otherwise... pass it by. It's stupid - and not in a clever or original way. This one is about as old and tired as any show has ever been at its premiere.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Well, I think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've seen "professional" reviews claiming Julia Roberts playing herself was "clever and very funny". I think NOT. An actress playing herself? And doing it with her same usual dizziness whenever she tries comedy? Talk about Hollyweird narcissism at it's utmost. Why doesn't she just stand there and go, "Me, me, me. Look at me!." The director and writer should be shot for not thinking of something better then this in what could have been a charming sequel. and by the way Steven, when the audience starts paying more attention to the weird camera angles then the story you have a problem. Capra, Hitchcock, all used some creative cameras but they were talented enough not to lose the audience in them or just show off with the camera. You seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of film-making in the name of "style". The Pitt and Zeta Jones chemistry is quite good however, perhaps if they had made the film more focused around them and dispensed with the narcissism it might have worked. Once again Zeta Jones shows how she's got more talent and beauty then Roberts could dream of. Sadly, this film wastes talent and fails on many accounts. I want my money back.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...

Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. "Come on, it was the fifties!", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.

Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)

Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do...

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

negative
Am an ardent Vijay fan. I have never seen another movie of his which is as good as this.

It has all the regular clichés that one can expect from a commercial entertainer. A hero who is bad in studies but a star in his forte i.e.Kabbadi. His friends to fill in the comedy quota. A heroine in a life-and-death situation. A villain, which I say is the best ever portrayed by the protagonist. High octane chase and action sequences. Music that can make one dance. And above all that a perfect storyline to keep all the above factors within an enjoyable circle. Perfect.

The director doesn't give any chance for the audience to loosen up. He just goes on from one nail on the head to the next. And one can see the lighter side of Vijay in this film which he rarely executes.

All said.....This movie was and will be perfect for many years to come....
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Don't be fooled: this isn't yet another tired example of the Girls From Outer Space Pretending To Be The French Ski Team Come To Earth To Collect As Much Sperm As Possible genre, though the synopsis may suggest otherwise. This movie is a gem, an absolute jewel that has enriched my life from the moment I laid eyes upon it. Hilarious, exhilarating, action-packed, and stunningly erotic, "Ach jodel mir noch einen" is a Euro-Madcap Tour-De-Force, a grossly underrated Bavarian classic.

Stop everything you are doing and run out to rent, or better yet, BUY this movie immediately.
Drug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.

Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes  flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest  are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.

Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist

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

negative
I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I watched this movie "miniseries" on television back in 1989 and it was an amazing movie. I would love to track down a copy of it just to watch it again and again. It's been 15 years since I watched it and it still sticks out in my mind.

 From the beginning, it draws you in. The characters and plot line keep holding you. The ending was superb. The feeling and rage that the son displayed when finding out the truth about his father are unforgettable. The suspense on how it will turn out and how he will confront his father is really intense.

If you can get a copy of this movie, you will thoroughly enjoy watching it.

Then, email me and tell me where I can get a copy.

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

positive
George Zucco was a fine actor, often playing gimlet-eyed villains with a lascivious intensity. However even he couldn't save this dull and flat-footed B flick.

Zucco plays the usual mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, who believes that wolf's blood, injected into humans, can create an invincible army of wolf men who can win the World War II (go figure!) Experimenting on Pedro the handyman(Glenn Strange) Zucco creates a werewolf that looks rather like the ones Dave Allen used to play in his comedy sketches! Pedro is obviously based on Lennie from Of Mice And Men, and you almost keep expecting him to say "Duh, okay, George!" There's one startling moment when the werewolf kills a child by reaching in through the window and grabbing it, but for the most part this is a routine and pedestrian - very pedestrian - 77 minute tread through all the old clichés that are done far better in other movies.We also get the revenge motif from the Devil Bat worked in, in itself a borrowing from Son Of Frankenstein!

Zucco is wasted, and you only have to see him in films such as Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy's Hand and Dr. Renault's Secret to see how wasted. A few atmospheric swamp scenes are all it has to offer, really. And the scene where Zucco demonstrates his wolf-man technique to those who doubted him (again shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) is unintentionally hilarious.

Not one of the better 40s B movies.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.

The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.

I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.

Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.

The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I actually though that Black Snake Moan was great movie which takes place in the south. The story follows a man named Lazarus whose wife dumps him for his brother and finds Rae abandoned and beaten up on the side of the road. Lazarus finds out that Rae is a sex addict and was abused as a child so he decides to take matters into his own hands by tying up Rae with a chain to cure her of her wickedness. Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci have great chemistry together and their performances make you believe that through their struggles and search for redemption that Lazarus and Rae become best friends. I was also amazed by Sam's ability to play an electric guitar and being able to sing. S Epatha Merrkensen is great as Lazarus' love interest Angela, Justin Timberlake plays Rae's boyfriend Ronnie who is underused in the film but does the best that he can to deliver a fine performance.
Write a positive movie review.

I watched this movie the night it premiered on MTV. Usually to me MTV Movies are kind of stupid but this one was so good. Summer Phoenix is an amazing actress and I thought that Nick Stahl was good too. If MTV started showing more movies like this I would probably enjoy the channel a lot more.
Write a negative movie review.

I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of "The Boys are Back In Town", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.

2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.

3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.

4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to "figure out" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.

There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as "God", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.
What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.

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

positive
Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. "K2" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.

Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?

"K2" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable  just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. "K2" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain  during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: "On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!" Quite true, Kim, quite true!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

My suggestion..... This movie was really intended to be a "comedy",wasn't it?!!!! If not, the producers, directors, actors & "hair stylists" should really choose another career! Now, the guidelines of my submission requires a minimum of "10 lines". How in the world can I add any more to this? Hmm...Let me see. Oh yes, the beginning of the movie was quite hilarious with the "crash landing" scene. Too bad that the plane didn't hit the tanker truck & a bunch of "martians" would have scrambled out from the wreckage (obviously hiding) and decided to take over the "world" planet and make a better movie. Now, that would have been a great beginning!

T