cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If I look hard enough, flaws can be found in this film, primarily with the script. I found the character of Wolf not totally convincing. However, those were my only "complaints." Because when this movie started on Cable, I was just going to record it and watch it later. However, from the beginning, with the eerie music and Cameron Diaz doing her spaced out 60's dance, I was riveted. I never got up until the movie was over. It seemed like I never even blinked.

The acting of Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster was excellent. The scenes were beautiful, the girls were beautiful, and the music was haunting and very touching. The story was quite unique and at times had a surreal quality. The viewer would tend to like the picture more if they had a good understanding of the state of mind of young people in the 60's and 70's, especially in America. Many of the scenes basically succeeded in showing something of that era that is hard to pin down. It was a bit more complicated than the simplistic statement that they wanted to change the world and ended up disillusioned, although that may be the most obvious aspect. Phoebe learns more and more about this as the movie progresses.

One aspect that didn't seem to be covered by the other reviewers that might bear mentioning, is the way the two daughters seem to drift through life after the death of their father. They both had adored him, and his presence had been a stabilizing factor in their lives and obviously he had loved them dearly. We read so much today about boys who lose their fathers too soon, only to lose their way themselves. This film covers the ripple effect of the loss of the father on the daughters left behind, first on the older sister Faith, then on to her younger sister. Their mother feels inadequate to try to be both parents. This type of dynamic is not covered in hardly any other movies, especially in so many different layers of plot and subplot. Phoebe's inner struggles of reality versus perceptions are gradually peeled away like layers of an onion.

Speaking of plot, this movie should rate higher than it has here. I kept waiting for some great conspiracy to be found out concerning the death of Faith. How it did resolve itself surprised me, even if others may have guessed much sooner.

Maybe not for everybody, but I could watch this movie many, many times.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!
Write a positive movie review.

The Falcon and the Snowman is the true story of two college-age rich kids from L.A. who become spies for the Soviet Union. One, played by Penn, is already a drug smuggler up to his eyeballs in trouble. The other, played by Hutton, lands a position at an aerospace firm where his job is to man a top-secret cable facility. There he learns of some of the dirty tricks employed by the CIA on foreigners that America doesn't like. Don't forget that the movie is set the early 70s, the time of Vietnam and Watergate. Appalled at what he's learned, the Hutton character decides to betray his country and convinces his buddy to join him. Neither of them is long on brains, it is not long before they're way in over their heads with no way out.

This is not a thriller, and is rather slowly paced. If this is not a problem for you, then it is well worth the rental.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A group of young adults get stranded in the back of the beyond, where the only place in the vicinity is a museum full of wax dummies, and the only form of help is affable local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors). As night falls, the kids get picked off in record time.

An odd, freaky B movie that combines the creepiness of backwoods settings with the plot device of all-too-lifelike mannequins (making this a good update of the "bodies in the wax museum" genre), this is an intense shock fest along the lines of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre". (It should then come as no surprise that TCSM art director Robert A. Burns repeats that duty here, and his eye for great set decoration always comes in handy.) Pino Donaggios' score is downright chilling; accompanied by the murky photography of Nicholas von Sternberg, it drenches the film in oppressive atmosphere.

Plot twists vary in level of success; there was one that I saw coming a mile away, and one that actually took me by surprise, and I was all the more happier for it. One of the best moments is shared with us almost right up front, as the first chump victim is trapped in a room with objects flying at him of their own volition. The capper is a great impalement by pipe with blood dripping out of the end.

Star Connors offers an engaging performance as our down-home good ol' boy antagonist, while the younger co-stars, predictably, can't perform at the same level, although Jocelyn Jones is a likable enough and certainly winsome lady who has enough appeal to rate as a sympathetic damsel-in-distress. Co-star Tanya Roberts (a brunette in this film) is okay in support. (If I had one problem with this film, it's just that the victims are a little too stupid. Then again, that doesn't make this much different from many horror films of the 80's.) Future notable names among the credits are future directors Ted Nicolaou, who was the editor here, Ron Underwood (who made a great debut almost a dozen years later with "Tremors") as the assistant director, and veteran makeup artist Ve Neill, who's done many films and won three Oscars since.

Although some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of nudity and sexual elements, this is otherwise a nice little surprise that debuting director David Schmoeller delivers with conviction and gusto. Recommended.

8/10
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A very bizarre bringing to the screen of William Shakespeare's tragic love story.

The Que family and the Capulet family have a long running hatred of one another which often results in violence. The hatred has something to do with a film company and the fact that everyone is pretty much crazy. In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous "star crossed" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.

The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines. But the infamous Troma bizarreness pervades the film from beginning to end. That makes for a movie that is definitely not for all tastes, but it is nonetheless pretty inventive. Tyrone (Tybalt in Shakespeare) has a particularly funny death scene. 7/10

Many differently edited and rated versions exist. Each contains violence, profanity, drug use, and sex, all with a big dose of bizarreness.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything "virgin" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.

It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a "forest king" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of "dream-like" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the "forest king" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).

I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that "Simona" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.

It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably "serious".
I own a copy of this film and have always loved it. I comment here, however, because I saw the PBS presentation of a concert version of Sweeney Todd earlier this week. That production was put on by the San Francisco Opera and starred George Hearn and Patti LuPone. In the early '80s Hearn replaced Len Cariou as Sweeney (Cariou had won the Tony for his performance). I saw Hearn and Angela Lansbury (who also won the Tony for her performance as Mrs. Lovett) perform Sweeney on broadway. They must have made the film at about the time I saw the show. To this day, the most moving moment I can ever remember in the theatre occurred when Hearn sang "These are my Friends." ("These are my friends, see how they glisten." "My arm is complete again!") 

Hearn's performance in the San Francisco Opera production convinced me that he has lost nothing in the nearly twenty years since I first saw him perform the piece on Broadway and later in the film. What a talent! He is sympathetic, funny, and scary -- all at once; and he can sing, boy can he sing. All of this reminded me of how terrific the film is. Highly recommended. Ten out of ten.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7.
Write a positive movie review.

What this movie is not: Cool, Entertaining

What this movie is: Visually Interesting, Difficult to get through, Intentional

I feel that this movie puts the viewer (if he or she is willing) through a clip of time where they experience a world without language. Much like how animals must experience the world. You don't really watch this movie as much as you witness an awful series of events in what "feels" like real time.

Consistently, it goes on much longer than is comfortable. This movie could be edited down to a 20 minute short and it would be a totally different movie. It would be cool and entertaining, but the experience would be lost. I have seen a lot of cool movies, but I have never experienced one like this. If you can get your head in the right place for this one, you should be able to really appreciate (but likely not "enjoy") what they accomplished here. 10 out of 10.
OK, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.

First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.

The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.

I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.

If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I watched the first episode of "The War at Home" because I thought it was worth replacing "Arrested Development", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of "Grounded for Life", "Titus", and "Married...with Children" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called "punch lines" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those "punch lines" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode "Gaza Strip").

In the episode "Dream Crusher", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend "Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. "The War at Home" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.

Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with "Boston Public". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in "Malcolm in the Middle"}.

So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker

FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in "The Dream Hunters") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.
What's an example of a movie review?

I'm glad that I did not expect too much when I saw this sequel to one of my favourite childhood films. The storyline was dull and unconvincing as were the characters, and I was disappointed that some of the characters in the original were not in this sequel. I also did not think that the characters themselves were similar from the previous film. Charlie had changed, and now, he has a girlfriend. The first film had some good music, but the music in this film was unmemorable. In short, this film just did not do it for me. And, looking at other user feedback, it looks like it didn't do it for a lot of you. It's not worth watching.
Determine the sentiment:

This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video/DVD yet. Watch your PBS listings!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner 

Production: The Filmmakers/RKO Radio Pictures

Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction). 

Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home. 

Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape? 

Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does. 

The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective. 

Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit. 

*½ out of 4

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I had never heard of this film when a good friend recommended it. I trust this friend's taste, so I purchased the DVD. My wife and I sat down to watch it with no knowledge of what it was about. I thought it was the funniest film I have seen in a long time, mainly because I saw the truth in the satire. I strongly recommend this film to all my friends.

This is not a film for everyone. Some people will see the crass humor and aura of stupidity, and find Idiocracy to be one of the stupidest movies they have seen. What these people don't seem to understand is that the crass humor is there, not to amuse the audience, but to show what appeals to the morons in the future.

Luke Wilson is well cast as an "average Joe." He is mainly there to be a foible for the biting commentary about society that is spread throughout this film. Many of the funnier bits are in the background, so it is easily worth seeing several times. What makes the movie even funnier, and more scary, is that I see elements of it in every day life, in people I meet or on the media. Then, I go back and re-watch Idiocracy, and realize how good it is.

The few people who have seen and enjoyed this film are able to be part of an elite club. I'll see an advertisement for some product with some breakthrough new ingredient, and turn to my wife and say, "It's got electrolytes!" She knows exactly what I am saying.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I got this on a double feature DVD called "Scream Theater" and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about "non-stop party", so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The Violent Men is a good western. Perhaps the story is not an original one -big ranch owner dedicated to run out small competitors out of a valley he needs for his increasing cattle- but the film has many ingredients that raises its level and makes it worth seeing.

The cast is a highlight. There's the reliable Glenn Ford (John Parrish) as a former army officer and now one of the small ranchers, who tries to stay out of troubles until he is pushed to hard. Edward Robinson (Lew Wilkinson) is as good as always as the crippled big man and Barbara Stanwyck (Martha) plays his treacherous wife in one of her usual mean woman roles she deals with easily (others were in "Double Indemnity" and "Blowing Wild). Brian Keith (Cole) does it perfectly as Robinson's gunman brother, an ambitious man trying to take over his brother's big ranch no matter what. Regular 50's westerns villain Richard Jaeckel (Wade Mattlock) is there too and ends as usual (no surprise there). Dianne Foster (Judith Wilkinson) plays Robinson's daughter who does not approve his father, mother and uncle's way of handling things with their neighbors.

Rudolph Mate brings a standard but acceptable direction, perhaps helped by beautiful and wide open scenery and a fine and appropriate music score helps too.

The inevitable final showdown between Ford and Keith is one of the best in western movies. Each man in his own dueling style (notice Ford's shooting with his straight arm and aiming at its target in the military way) settle their differences then and once and for all.

This is for sure one of Glenn Ford's best western appearances, second only to the classic "3:10 to Yuma" he made two years later. It's probably the cast that puts the film as an "A" rate and, as for me, it enters the top 10 list of the genre.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Essentially this is a dreadful film with a few features that may or may not redeem it for you, depending on how much you want them to. In "opening up" "The Red Green Show" for the big screen, the filmmakers jettisoned the rustic charm carefully honed over a decade's worth of episodes set in and around Possum Lodge in favor of a blandly-photographed "road movie" with a ghastly faux-Hollywood "big" musical score and profoundly boring storyline that's not embellished with enough good gags to make it as entertaining as even the most mediocre episode of the TV series.

Having devised a plotline that keeps most of the members of Possum Lodge offscreen for most of the film and requires virtually everyone concerned to be despicably mean to the loveable Harold (who's the hero of the film, the usually affably crusty Red being relegated in this incarnation to nothing more than the role of head Harold abuser), the only performers who really get to shine are Patrick McKenna and Peter Keleghan as Harold and Ranger Gord, who deliver satisfyingly large-screen versions of their small-screen characters.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.

Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.

It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that.
Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button? 

This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting ) 

It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is this the future of wonderful, affordable film making?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.
This version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.

This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Historical drama is one of the areas where the British just can't be beat. So while i'm not a huge fan of the genre, i can usually be persuaded to watch something lite this if it's British and with decent actors.

I have never read anything by Sarah Waters, which is of course something i should do. Hence i didn't really know what to expect from this. I had heard that there would be a lesbian love story, but not much more. While watching it i found it to be a lot more interesting than i had anticipated. Without saying too much the twists and turns of the plot are unexpected as well as well-crafted. Although there were almost a twist too many somewhere, it took me a minute to get everything straight.

Production values are good, the actors are very solid and the pace is decent, although i found it to be a bit slow in the last half-hour. That might just be me though, i usually have a problem with movies dragging on after the plot is more or less finished. All in all though, this is a fairly enjoyable three hours. I recommend it to anyone interested in historical dramas.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

i can't even describe it. it's the worst movie i've ever seen (i'm being a nice guy when i call it movie).Just another big-budget-made-to-someone-who-doesn't-like-to-think-much.It's not even scary. It's revolting when there are great movies that never reach the big screen and then comes this..."thing" to trick movie fans. I guess big producers make whatever they want.

Just get a big producer, hot chicks (allthough horrible actresses) and a ton of horror movie clichés and cook it for a week or so, and you'll get "The Nun".

And I thought Bad Boys 2 was horrible!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 3/10

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

negative
This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.

But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.

I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the 'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors.

The story begins..... He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated! 

Russell can't seem to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to him, "You have unfinished business to take care of, now!"

Amy the supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was foundational is becoming like jelly! 

Willis is fun, egocentric and at times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching 'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground. 

All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****)

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

positive
Good drama movie about a child custody case with great performances by all the actors.A good example of what an excellent script can do to propel a simple story to a much higher quality.The screenplay was just average though and this is what kept the movie from the list of the all time best dramas.Still,the great acting makes this movie a good one to see if you are a fan of court dramas or a big fan of the lead actors.The movie really should have been a tad longer though for more excellence but that would really be nitpicking......
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his "delicate back" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's "legend". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more "truth" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of "To Kill a Mockingbird." In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, "...Caged Bird..." can be used as an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive