cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

Sylvester the cat stowaway upon a ship that Tweety bird happens to be on with his owner Granny. Oh I don't even have enough words to convey how much I disdain both the Tweety and Granny characters. They simply are not funny to me and made this short quite the chore to sit through indeed. Sylvester is a great character on his own, but there's only so much he can do when confronted by the sheer awfulness of that accursed bid and senile old witch of a Granny. This animated short can be found on disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1 and features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: D+
THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!

Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.

I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical "Speakman pummeling bad guys" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.

Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings......
Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of "We Are Marshall" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is one of the most cerebral insightful movies I have ever seen. The script language, costumes, scenery, plot, characters, etc. all are supreme. You will not be bored. I have watched intensely or even just listened to this movie while working so many times I have lost count. Scarlett ages gracefully, acquiring wisdom beyond her years in the end. This movie takes you from Tara to Ireland where her family is originally from and you see the results of another civil war played out there, this time between the Irish and English.

This movie depicts the double standards of men at the time--a man is still respected if he has girlfriends and whores, but not a woman. If she is merely seen in a private place with a man society accuses her of impropriety. And of course Scarlett was always thinking outside the box, breaking rules when necessary to create needed change, help people, and/or survive.

Scarlett's beauty definitely is to the bone. Her strength, self-esteem, and wisdom grow as she ages. 

I remember her lines when I am confronted with too much on my plate, such as, "tomorrow is another day," and the way she carried herself, her determination and courage, and have learned from her experiences. This is a good movie to show your daughters as it teaches a woman how important it is to have respect for yourself, and that men, especially very handsome ones, can have two sides and may treat a woman differently, depending on how she acts and respects herself. An attractive woman needs to learn what this movie teaches. 

This movie is like therapy to me, and it is better than Gone with the Wind. The second part takes place in Ireland and anyone who is of Irish decent will cherish the scenery, people, and Scarlett's character within it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I wanted to see this movie because I am a very huge Abbott and Costello fan, and when I saw it, I liked it.

This movie is funny, not hysterical, but funny. I mean I laughed at a lot of the funny parts and I just plain enjoyed it.

Though it is not of the best of the Perfect Straight Man and the Perfect Buffoon, you should see this if you really love Abbott and Costello.

Out of all of the Abbott and Costello movies that I have seen, I can't say I've seen one that I hated. This is decent, funny, and entertaining. Abbott and Costello at least made some pretty decent movies in their later years.

All in all, I liked this movie, it is not one of their best ones, but I liked it.

7/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I can not say this movie was a hilarious, but I must have had a grin on my face the entire time. I like this darker kind of comedy; "very bad things", "8 heads in a duffel bag" or "coldblooded"

The way the main character tries to get away with murder is a lot of fun to watch. To me it was not much of a surprise what the ending would be, but the way that ending came about was. Another thing that sticks out, is the way they have managed to involve the audience. The way Terry looks at us is hilarious, you can almost pretend you're his accomplice.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Worse than mediocre thriller about an abused wife who goes on the lam after she is linked circumstantially to the death of her husband and sister. Determined to prove that her husband is alive she follows leads across the state, her peril increasing at each stop. Chasing after her are the traditional 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' pair of partners. One is convinced of her innocence the other more interested in closing the case and getting home. This pair is often able to corner their suspect but never quite to capture her. All the main players meet up in a remote town in the desert and the truth begins to unfold with deadly consequences for some.

Wow! This was a bad movie. The lead acted as if she was tranquilized, The cops couldn't find a suspect if he or she is in the police station (this happens twice) and everyone else is as one-dimensional as can be. Avoid this one at all costs.
What's an example of a movie review?

I can't praise this film enough. It had a lot of that hand-held, first-person shaking camera which I love (and some hate, because it makes them sick), like REC, Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project.

It is a long movie for its kind, but I didn't even notice because the film was so interesting. By just showing the footage from a paranormal reporter's work the movie keeps up the pace, making it a real-time experience for the viewer.

While I would never call this film the "scariest horror ever made", I'd have to say it's certainly one of the best I've seen. The fear factor here is constructed by details in the images, camera glitches, events linked to one another which lend a very mysterious and haunting tone to the movie. The horror is more in what is not shown, but left to our imaginations. The ending is perfect, and be warned that you might have nightmares afterwards. A second viewing is highly recommended, though.

Watch this one alone in the dark, don't expect anything and you'll have fun.
Calling all D-sciples! Grab your friends, hit the theater and see the hell out of this movie. From the opening sequence until after the credits you'll be laughing your self breathless. 

This movie is a wild ride through the history of the D, and not just some bull-crap list of the things they've done, but a chronicling of their rise to power. I am a huge fan of Rage Kage(Kyle Gass) and Jables(Jack Black), so naturally I loved the movie. 

It helps to know about the show they had, and their first CD, but it's just as funny if you don't. From the hilarious and vulgar lyrics, the rocking rhythms, the massive amount of pot smoking, and the cameos, down to the outright insanity that is the story line, this is a movie for D-sciples and newbies alike. 

Many of their songs are referenced, such as Two Kings, Tribute, and Kielbasa to their many audio tracks like Cock Push-ups, every fan in the audience will be saying I remember that as well as new comers saying "That's F'ing hilarious!." I highly recommend this movie to any body that's ever rocked out. This movie is certainly in high competition for being the next "This is Spinal Tap." One of the best ever.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. 

Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Wow! Fantastic film in my opinion, i wasn't expecting it to be this good! I was captivated from start to finish- it's a very well made and educational film that really gives us a fascinating insight into the trials Darwin had to go through in order to convey his ideas to the world, chronicling his life as he writes "Origin of the Species"; fighting both personal demons as well as the ignorant society of the time in order to do so. He struggles hard with his mind, body and soul as personal matters get to breaking point and even his family seems to slip away...whilst the rest of the world stand against him as he knows that his findings literally shake the very foundations of their lives, culture and meaning of existence. It's a subtle movie (not over-exaggerated in any way in that typical Hollywood way, this is a BBC produced British film) yet thankfully very powerful in meaning and this is thanks to the amazing well directed scenes as well as the superb acting by Bettany. Connelly acts as more of a light supporting role but I did enjoy her in this and she's as good as to be expected as always, her chemistry alongside her husband was definitely strong and endearing, you could feel the connection, and their real-life husband/wife bond definitely shines through their performances. But the star of the show is definitely Bettany and he does a brilliant job, a very touching performance- i both understood and sympathised with him as he battled his own degrading health and impending "insanity" to try to understand what he has uncovered and come to terms with what it all really is and means as he found his thinking contradict his feelings, and found himself losing it all including his wife who of course was a firm believer in religion and a strict Christian whilst he was in the realm of science, two worlds which could not see eye to eye, so their relationship was at stake too.

Anyway- a really very good, well acted emotional drama and dare I say I did shed a tear during the tragic climax which was truly heartbreaking as well as beautifully poignant and moving. The film is symbolic and very intellectually artistic as well, in fact i can't wait to watch it again as there was a lot to take in first time round which i missed. Easily one of the best films i've seen this year.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Right then. This film is totally unfunny, puerile, has gags from other films, has songs from other films (Blink 182's "Mutt", Grand Theft Audio's "We Luv U"), an unlikeable leading man, a ridiculous plot, and lame parodies of films like Mission Impossible 2 and American Beauty. Redeeming features? Shannon Elizabeth and Jaime Pressly. Enough said.
Leno talks through his punch lines. This spoils the joke, for those of you who haven't figured it out. His show is held in a micro sized studio for a reason, or two reasons -- the small amount of laughter will be amplified, and few want to see him. Letterman's set is the polar opposite -- Ed Sullivan would be proud and the balcony is always full.

NBC, tacky NBC, will never get it. Founder David Sarnoff's megalomaniacal enterprise continues to be all about the money. At least CBS has a bit of a family feel to it.

Leno collects cars, or is it stamps, while Letterman races cars. The difference is informative.

When I chatted I used to ask other chatters to email me if Leno _ever_ said something that was funny. I never got a single email. Letterman has superb timing. He also can re-use the most unfunny joke in such a way that it becomes one of the funniest things in that night's show.

Letterman has built other careers. Paul is now well known and respected in his own musical right. Even Paul's other band members get recognition and career boosting. Biff Henderson has become a name America knows of. Even the businesses in the same block as the Ed Sullivan theater get a boost. What has Leno ever done for anyone else? Personally, I am glad that Dave moved and Leno got the Carson gig. I never watched NBC shows before and had no reason to after.

The Top Ten list is an American icon. So is Letterman. Leno is a caricaturist's dream, nothing more.

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

positive
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.

I still think Martin Sheen got "dissed" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?

Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.

The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......

Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.

That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.

So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Youth In Us is a pitch-perfect gem. I saw this stunning short at this year's 2005 Sundance Festival. The story took me on a profoundly transforming journey. The directing by Joshua Leonard, the acting of Kelli Garner and Lukas Haas, the art direction, the cinematography, the score -- every element was true to the bone. One can only hope that this exquisite and excruciating film is prelude to more great work from this gifted director.

Just as a short film is shown before a feature at Sundance, commercial movie theatres used a similar format in times past. It would be wonderful if miniature masterpieces like The Youth In Us could reach a wider audience this way.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.

Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.

Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.
Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.

On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.

The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the "bad guys", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the "serious" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the "humor" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.

This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.

I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.

I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.

The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: "Do I ever stumble over MY words?" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.

The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.

The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the "hippest" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.

Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
From a military historian's standpoint, nearly everything in this movie is historically accurate. Beyond that, it is an enthralling story that leaves you depressed at the end but quite glad you took the time to watch.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

An unbelievable plot, laughable characters, and obvious errors (in one scene where several grass huts are supposed to be burning, a gas torch can be seen repeatedly trying to ignite one of the huts), this film is a real dog.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

My guess is that the producers of this low-budget space/horror film wanted a serious movie but the director had his heart set on a parody. So...this is what we get. Set in an abandoned spaceship 1000 years in the future and peopled with characters and props right out of the 90's. The set is some industrial complex, maybe an oil tanker, whatever. They use is AS IS so the controls consist racks of old TV equipment. One location is obviously the employees lunchroom and sports an old TV and VCR as well as a water cooler with plastic demijohn. Tiny Lister and Coolio get the best lines, arguing throughout the story. The dialog is packed with terms that are pretty dated even now ("A-OK, Daddy-O") but then maybe the 30th century is very retro? When the captain declares the ships cargo is a load of coffins from "The Transylvania Station" you know this is all a put-on. Its a bit of Alien, part JasonX, shameless rip-off of all the best sci-fi and horror titles. At one point Casper VanDien even tells his pilot to "make it so" with a straight face. This film would have been better if they had just let everyone run with the satire but they keep attempting to make the story serious....maybe the backers were on the set that day. Anyway, not a bad boredom killer if you aren't too picky. FX are as good as the sets are bad.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am a massive Hitchcock fan, ever since seeing "Rear Window" on television. "Saboteur" is not Hitchcock's best for me though, it is very good but not a masterpiece. It does have its faults, some parts are rather slow moving and as a consequence of it being written off in a hurry the script felt rather incomplete. But Hitchcock's direction is superb, and the performances weren't that bad. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane both do a good enough job, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd come very close to stealing the show. The story is good, about a wronged man on the run, very similar themes used in "39 Steps" and "North By Northwest", and cleverly provides some much needed escapism. The music score was absolutely outstanding; the music in the opening title sequence was phenomenal, almost like a distorted march, and I liked the digs at Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto and Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The cinematography is also crisp and smooth, the scenery and landscapes almost dazzling and there are also a number of very effective scenes. Namely the Statue of Liberty climax, but the circus troupe encounter and the Radio Music City Hall shoot-out is also on the money. Overall, not Hitchcock's best, but definitely worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie turned out to be pretty much what I expected. Of course it's sappy, of course it's predictable. We all know the fairytale. But knowing that when you go to watch it, it's enjoyable enough to watch. It was funny and sweet. I did find it annoying that they showed geeks as either kids who didn't wash there hair or kids who loved math and joined clubs about math and wore T-shirts about math. I was an outcast in high school and I didn't do these things. It goes much deeper than that. Having to do with many things, some of that being how much money your family has, how much you are willing to hide your uniqueness and how mean you are willing to be to other kids. Anyway, I won't get into it. I don't agree with other opinions that Drew isn't convincing as a geek. With braces, no make-up and unwashed hair, I don't think too many people would be drooling over her. And even when she goes back to high-school and sheds those things. She's still wearing the "wrong" clothes, "wrong" hair and has the "wrong" attitude to be considered cool. And her other "geek" friend may be beautiful but it doesn't matter, where I come from, you can still be an outcast and be beautiful. (inside and out)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can. 

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.
Determine the sentiment:

Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.

A mad scientist sets out to "cure" both monsters of their "sicknesses" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.

If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. 

Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). 

On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.

Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.

2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.

3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. 

4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.

5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.

6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.

Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I absolutely loved this series, and was very sad to see it go. Yes, it's Christian based, and traditionally as well. It deals with some tough issues, as the other reviewer points out, but I guess it depends on your viewpoint on these matters, and as a teenager growing up and now as a mother myself, I was so happy to see a TV series that was clean and, well, quite frankly, wonderful! I, unlike the other reviewer, was heartened to see how they dealt with the condom deal. Instead of hearing the typical wishy washiness about condoms, they showed the son actually working at being chaste and applying it to his later relationships, which were pure and Godly because of it, and A lot safer because of it (100%!).

After watching this entire series, you become extremely attached to all the characters in the family and outside the family (once they settle down more permanently), and the moral values they teach in each episode are just priceless. I found Touched by an Angel (made by the same producer) to be cheesy here and there (although overall I liked it), but this series, in my opinion, was a lot better made and had better acting and was more interesting as well. It was good for the entire family and was interesting for the entire family, which was a huge plus. The family wasn't outstanding, they had their own faults, but in the long run they did what was right and you saw them grow and change and struggle like any true family does. It was my favorite show at the time and will always be near the top of my list, I hope it comes out on DVD!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made "The Postman" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in "Butterfly Effect". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!
What's an example of a movie review?

Amnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.
Hmph. Soul Plane supposed to be a "black comedy" spoof of a much well known movie, Airplane. This movie, is black comedy done at it's worst. Stereotypes can be funny, and a lot of times they are. But in this picture, it's disgusting. Okay, you have clubs, sex, drugs, everything crude that people associate with "urban" culture today.

Tom Arnold's appearance in this movie, is this movie's saving grace if it ever had any. DL Hughley should have never accepted the script. Kevin Hart makes a poor leading figure here... his appearance in this movie will probably grow annoying to many. Method Man and Snoop's appearance were by far, their worst.

I am just happy that I didn't pay to see this movie...

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

negative
If you overlook the fact that the plot has been done many times, this is a hilarious and gleefully enjoyable Looney Tunes cartoon. The animation is wonderful, the backgrounds so detailed and a lot of audacious colouring too. The writing is razor sharp, and the sight gags especially Daffy constantly getting his head blown off are brilliantly timed. I really did love the arguments between Daffy and Bugs, and that Bugs wins every time. I also love it that Daffy is really greedy and nasty while being uproariously funny. I do prefer him when he's manic but he is great fun here too. Bugs is still his charming and rascally self, and Elmer is funny if rather dumb too. In short, this is absolutely brilliant, and actually my personal favourite of the Hunting Trilogy for sheer entertainment value. 10/10 Bethany Cox

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

positive
Over all, it was a real good movie. Though all the actors, besides Jones, sucked. By the time I was half was through it I was really getting tired of seeing 'Al'. Only change I would have made to it would to have more flash backs, possibly with the real Cobb.

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

negative
I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.

Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.

From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

PERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote "1" because the actress is beautiful ... ;)
Determine the sentiment:

I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative