cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.

The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.

Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.

The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
ya know the concept of "guilty pleasures"? yeah, you have 'em, like admitting you watched - and enjoyed - goonies, battlestar galactica AFTER they reached earth, v the series, charlie's angels, starsky & hutch, the 1950s version of superman, or godzilla movies.

here's the ultimate in guilty pleasures. coupled with jack of all trades in a sam raimi action packed hour, this half hour slot is fast paced, easy to follow, and loaded with fun-to-watch scanlity-clad babes.

the man that brought us evil dead, xena, hercules, and the adventures of brisco county jr does it again with this 2000 update of charlies angels. we got charlie (voice) an unknown being that has the knowlege and the time to find people who need help, bosley (mouser) the gadget man, and three gorgeous babes that kick a** for a living.

and oh what a living!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie "Dead Line". This is the US video title for "Interferencia". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of "B" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on "The Asylum" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is "The screams you will hear are real". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I have been looking for this mini-series for a very long time. I saw this movie when I was living in back in Russia many years ago. I'm curious if somebody who has the recorded copy of this movie can send me the copy. I'm willing to cover all the expenses and pay for the extra tapes or DVDs. This is one of the best TV series that I have ever watched. I would recommend it to anybody who is somewhat interested in Israel History and World History after WWII. I'm also trying to find a book (I have heard that its even better than the movie)however the new one costs around $50 on amazon and I have never purchased a used copy. my e-mail address is yurets777@hotmail.com Thank you very much for you help.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! 

Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! 

By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.

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

negative
I ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.

Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.

It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.

The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant. 

The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing. 

I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.

I give this movie 1 out of 10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like "Chairman of the Board." 10/10... don't miss this instant classic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After reading over all these reviews I'm very surprised to see that no one has even once noted that this show was based on the 1957 to 1960 NBC cop show "M Squad" starring Lee Marvin, i read reviews comparing it to "Dragnet" and some of the Quinn Martin police shows, but if you watch M Squad you'll see it was based on it. In the late 1958 episodes of M Squad onwards, you'll see Lee Marvin who plays Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger get out of his car and then hes shot at,and he shoots back, the beginning of Police Squad is basically the same ( including the Jazz music) and then Lee Marvin narrates what goes on, (Im Lieutenant Detective Frank Ballinger,M Squad,a special department of the Chicago police) and in Police Squad Leslie Neilsen does the same (Im Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad, a special division of the Police Department) and so on, in one of the M Squad episodes there's even the Johnny the shoeshine guy character and in a M Squad episode entitled " More Deadly" there's a Police Squad episode entitled "A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)" which is the same story!

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.

The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...

In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.

If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring.
This movie makes you think. It shows how a woman's weaknesses can result in nightmares for others. Her physically aggressive behavior is more often seen in men than women, so it made me feel even more uncomfortable to see the way the lead actress behaved. I think that women might think about this behavior, but I don't think they act on it. The dark scenes added to the sense of evil that needed to be hidden. I was relieved when the prisoners escaped. I was hopeful that the end would bring a satisfying solution, but it did not. Maybe that is more realistic. Life seems to run in the same direction instead of creating a new river bed running up hill.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...

was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...

This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!
I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).

The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.

Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 3/10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The cast alone tells you this will be a notch above the usual Italian western. Veteran actors Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy team up with Alex Cord who, at the time, seemed on the verge of stardom. The result is a movie that's both off-beat and down-beat and yet it'll satisfy those who seek more from a western than just gunplay. Especially interesting here is the character played by Alex Cord. One expects the "hero" in these westerns to be taciturn and introspective, but "Clay McCord" is an extreme example and, surprisingly enough, he's often shone in a passive, even weak position. Much is made of the fact that he fears falling prey to the epileptic fits which immobilized his father, and in these moments of helplessness he's either at the mercy of those who wish to harm him or those who wish to help him. To emphasize his passivity, Clay McCord -- don't you love that name? -- is often shone stripped to the waist as if he were little more than an attractive plaything being put on display. There's even a strong masochistic streak in his nature, most in evidence when he's used as a punching bag by his enemies and then suspended by his wrists and left hanging above the middle of a street. Not only does he often fail to protect himself, but McCord is equally ineffective in protecting those around him. Nearly everyone who helps him is killed. 

While "A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die" is far from being a complete success, it has a depth and a tone which sets it apart and causes it to linger in the memory. It's also a good showcase for Alex Cord whose career tended to decline after this point following a few promising years in the mid-1960s. He must have been about 36 years old when he filmed this -- in his physical prime -- and the scene of him hanging by his wrists, bare-chested and sweaty, is a memorable piece of cinematic "beefcake."
Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.

It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.

Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.

Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Aghhhhhh! What a disappointment. A perfectly good hunk like Antonio Sabato Jr and nothing but embarrassing drivel coming out of his mouth. I cringed at 95% of the Dialog! It would have been better to have made the character a mute! How Antonio Sabato and Michael Pare could speak those lines without losing control of some bodily function is beyond me! If Michale Pare's character prefaced or ended just one more sentence with the word 'Men' I think I would have thrown the iron through the TV set (I love to multitask - especially to get through bad movies). Must have been a lean year for both of them to sign up for this movie. Washing cars for a living would probably look pretty good to them by now. And the bad guy......if he was so bad why didn't he just shoot all those rich College kids instead of promising toilet breaks. Even the title was a misnomer. A 'Crash Landing' means the plane actually crashes and doesn't just land without even a token fire or anyone being injured. Instead of landing safely the plane should have crashed and burned just like the script.

THIS MOVIE IS A STINKER !
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was only fourteen when I first saw the Alien movies and I immediately came to like it. Original, terrifying and classic. Sigourney Weaver was the perfect choice for the female hero character and she would have deserved a statuette for her act. In 1979 something everlasting was born than the immortal series continued with a nothing less legendary movie than the first. Alien3 was a different point of view but I think this part was the most stressful and unique of all, this was my favourite. Unfortunately the last one was a failure in many ways. It was strained, illogical with full of meaningless massacres. I didn't like it at all, but I never thought that a worse part would ever be made in the future. Well as it turned out in 2004 I was wrong. Alien vs. Predator was a bad break, and it should have been directed by a more talented director or should have never been made at all. But when I saw Alien vs Predator Requiem I was totally shocked moreover devastated. When I sat down and decided to watch it with full of doubt, even than I had never thought that such a bad movie could be made. Without a screenplay, without a director and without actors I don't understand how can a film be made. Because this film misses these three terms. What you get is a nice massacre show without a story but with a lot of annoying and boring dialogues. Waste of money and waste of time. This movie is rather impudence, than honor to the fans of the both sides (Alien/Predator). Shame!

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

negative
Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.

The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".

What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.

The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.

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

negative
This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as "The Karate Kid" (1984), "Hero" (2002), "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), and "Kung Fu Hustle" (2004).

I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.

Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a flagship show, Attack of the Show (AOTS) is endemic of the larger fall of G4 TV; it is a show (and a station) that has fallen so far that it parades sex to try and cover its glaring faults. Its predecessor, The Screen Savers, was a venue for troubleshooting technology problems and scouting out the latest and greatest in technology. It was a nice show with a likable staff and it was fun to see some of the modding and other experiments the crew could put to together.

The acquisition of TechTV by G4 bothered some longtime fans of the station, but early returns were actually promising. The emphasis on gaming was a nice addition and I really enjoyed a lot of the coverage of E3 and other big entertainment events.

Unfortunately, AOTS now stands as but a shell of its former self. Those overseeing the channel have shifted the focus of the channel away from technology and gaming and toward anything that might elicit drool from young adult men. The result is that AOTS spends as much time parading Olivia Munn or touting the adult film industry as it does covering games. It is so bad it is practically unwatchable.

While some may get puerile joy out of this sort of thing, those who genuinely enjoy gaming may wonder where the good coverage went. Equally troubling, young gamers who might tune into G4 thinking their getting gaming - that active gaming group between 10-15 - are instead being fed things aimed toward a more mature audience. On a channel like HBO or Cinemax, things like that are expected. On G4, it's tragic.

At least SpikeTV, another male-aimed channel, has good programming like CSI. AOTS, and G4, has very little good left to offer.

Too bad, really.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the "bad guys" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.

One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.

A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.

Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
THE QUICKIE (1 outta 5 stars)

Pretty poor movie... an old-as-the-hills story about a high-ranking gangster who wants to quit, passing on his empire to his inept son. Of course, it's not going to be easy for someone in that line or work to just quit... so a contract is put out on his life. After throwing a big party an exterminator (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I guess is *never* going to act in anything other than TV movies or low budget direct-to-video trash ever again) is called to the scene. Our "hero" makes a pass at her... offering her big money for a "quickie"... she turns down his offer, even though she needs the money... but winds up staying overnight anyway... even after being brutally harassed by the overzealous son who thinks she was sent to kill his father. Ugh. The story just goes on and on... you can see every "twist" and "turn" coming a mile away. Weird soundtrack by some group called "The Tiger Lillies" will drive most people nuts... but I thought there was one kind of cool track towards the end. Or maybe I was just excited because I could tell that the movie was almost over? Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... what the hell happened to you?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film is one of the historically most accurate war films ever made in that it displays the reality of soldiers in a battle situation as well as the particular circumstances of the Battle of Stalingrad, obvious when one compares this film to works such as Anthony Beevor's book "Stalingrad".

Unlike the better known "Enemy at the Gates" where the plot diverts into a sniper/hunting story, this film shows what war can do to individuals. Although filmed by Germans, "Stalingrad" is anything but a nationalistic apologetic film. It shows that war films can be something beyond flag-waving, jingoistic distortions of the grim truth of war, like so many Hollywood "war" products seem to be.

The scripting, acting, direction and other film techniques in "Stlingrad" are of the highest caliber.

It's a must-see film for anyone contemplating to join an army and to obey orders from any type of "Fuehrer".
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.

The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.

The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.

This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment.

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

positive
OK i gave this a three A three! It deserves only one star no questions asked.

If your going to look at the movie seriously and take it as a legit B-Horror movie than yes it will get one star. But i believe it is apparent within the first minutes of the movie what we are dealing with is a piece of crap.

With this movie me and the buddy i was watching it with could of turned it off and put on something more "Hollywood" but instead we just decided to rip this whole movie apart from start to finish. We laughed so many times it was almost if i was watching a comedy.

The acting is terrible..... The effects and death sequences are so bad.... The Story complete crap.....

But the fact they are trying to make a serious horror movie..Priceless!

The most memorable part for me is when two of the characters are walking in a supposed "dark basement" which is clearly lit, and they pretend to not be able to see bumping into bones hanging from the ceiling bahahahaha just terrible.....

So if you want to laugh at how crappy this movie is, along with the fact it was made in 2004 than see this movie....

Wait why am i writing so much? no one knows about this movie...i doubt anyone will even read this hahahaha.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.

A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...

Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I saw this drama by cable TV. Although I saw just two series, I love this drama. I'm waiting for more series will be aired by cable.

Even though it describes horrible, absurd situation in a prisoner's camp, this one shows us an indomitable spirit, warmth, friendship and humanity. They don't know whether they can survive or not, but kept their hope strongly without being discouraged by adversity.

I know this movie is not realistic like other war documentary, but I don't want to blame for it. It makes me believe the strong will of people in the most difficult situation. 

'Private Bill' , especially, this episode touched deep in my heart.

I remember every scene. I always hate mathematics. But after seeing this drama, I can understand something about mathematics... Mathematics is his connection between past and present, also symbolizes eternity.

'Time, light and memory framed in a circle.'

Like other victims of war, he lost his lover by irresistible fate. I'm immersed in his time and memory as if I experienced same thing.

He experienced the great loss but he has pure passion of study.

He started his study in the camp, his joy of realize,

I believe his dedication of study sustained him.

I saw it several times, but the meaning of this film never faded. Every time I saw it, I feel same deep emotion.

* Their songs are beautiful, harmonious,

I'm sorry that I can't listen OST.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.

I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.

Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving "black skeletons" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".

I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was "when is it gonna go off!"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?

The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find?

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the "world premiere" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!
Determine the sentiment:

It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.

Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.

However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When I first saw "Race Against Fear" (don't you just love LMN movie titles?), I had to keep scratching my head. Was this meant to be serious? Why couldn't the main character even run like a normal person running, much less like a star runner? How did I know that the coach was evil only 1 minute into the film? All of these questions, and no answers. Then, I just let the inane script and the awful directing just carry me away...it was easier not to resist...then the film became funnier by the minute, and I now rank it among my top ten junk movies from LMN. Some have said here that Ariana Richards is really talented but that the material was flawed - I heartily disagree. Not only can she not convince me that she's an athlete, she's walks wide-eyed through the rest of the story, like she's just landed on earth. Maybe the coach broke out of prison and finished her off...at least I hope so.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.

As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was disappointing. After 15 years, when it was brought back to mind from reviewing some info about Mariel Hemingway, all the regrets I felt about the movie came rolling back. While I remember Peter O'Toole, I was entirely oblivious to the fact that the female "lead" (okay, - she was little more than an object for discussion in the storyline) was Ms. Hemingway. I saw this movie back in the days when I wrote movie reviews, and warned people off it, as the stories just didn't work, and fifteen years of my subconscious trying to sort things out still hasn't made sense of the flow of the ideas.

Part of this may have to do with the fact that it looked like, after the original movie (whatever it was about) was filmed, an editor came in and tried to piece together something out of it. I don't know if this had been a project of a previous studio boss, and so was sabotaged to discredit him or her by the successor, or this was a disaster from the original screenplay that attempts to salvage were unsuccessful. The theatrical version just didn't work.

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

negative