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

A lot of people give this movie a lot of crap, and all of it's really undeserved. People give this movie a hard time either because it's such a sick subject or they harp on some technical aspect of the movie no one else observes when they watch it. If, just by looking at the cover, you think this movie will make you uncomfortable...DON'T WATCH IT! However, you'd be missing out on one of the better cinematic experiences of the late 1990's, despite what anyone else says.

Dee Snider is wonderful here as Captain Howdy, the depths of insanity he plumbs to play this character has to be beyond words, and is much farther than any one of us would have to be willing to go. The acting here is wonderful. The film itself beautifully shot. The subject may be a bit too much for many to swallow, but it's still well worth your time. If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.
I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.

As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? "Who?" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.
Nostalgia isn't always the best reason to watch a movie. More often than not, the movies you loved as a kid will disappoint you as an adult. While there are exceptions to this rule, it's hard to justify owning a DVD of Krull, regardless of how many insightful the director's commentary may be. But stay sharp Gen X/Y'ers, because the dozens of disappointments dominating your trip down memory lane, might stop you from stumbling across one worth revisiting.

One surprise film worth another look is Joel Schumacher's Flatliners, the supernatural thriller starring 80's popcorn heavyweights Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts and Billy Baldwin. You would think that a stew comprised of this cast, the flamboyant flair of Schumacher and the über slick eye of cinematographer Jan De Bont would result in something sickeningly stodgy, but calories aside... Flatliners ain't half bad. Even though it's production design is inexplicably over-the-top and the photography is achingly over- stylized (replete with neon soaked streets spewing endless billows of steam), Flatliners still manages to be an effectively dark and compelling thriller. If there's an explanation why Flatliners was forgotten, it might be because 1990 saw the release of another, far superior, supernatural thriller: Jacob's Ladder.

Had Flatliners been released a year or two after Jacob's Ladder, it's likely Schumacher's flashy thriller would have been dismissed as a toned down, commercialized rip-off of Adrian Lyne's nightmarish masterpiece. But with these films being released in the same year, Flatliners enjoyed a different fate, tripling JL's take at the box office despite being a watered down version of a similar premise. The passage of time hasn't been as kind to Flatliners, it has been lost atop a dated heap of throwaway 80's Brat Pack dreck, while JL has cemented its reputation as a timeless classic. Fates aside, JL is seamlessly terrifying and it manages to keep audiences guessing right up until the last frame, whereas Flatliners falls victim to over- simplification and Hollywood conveniences that drag down the final act into a predictably tidy denouement. Comparisons between the two movies is unfair, and ultimately overlooks Flatliners ability to represent the 80's at its quintessential best. Released at the end of a decade of shallow excess, Flatliners will always be dated by its hairstyles and clothing styles, but in fairness, it should also be remembered as a well executed movie at (or at least near) the top of its particular heap of dreck. For intents and purposes, it's an entertaining walk down memory lane.

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

positive
I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.

It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.

The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.

This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.

Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.

Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.

I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

It is real easy to toast, roast, flay, and otherwise burn this film for all of its abundant flaws. It was made by high school students and faculty and a whole community; it shows! Sure, I could examine the script which is just ridiculous. A monster created from the garbage of a growing Californian city starts eating garbage and taking garbage cans all over the city. Soon this huge beast with wings no less begins to destroy buildings and even plays the "beauty and the beast" act with a young high school girl. Fortunately for her there is a gang of guys, her former boyfriend nicknamed "The Penguin," and the town drunk out to help her. The direction is awful, the production values just dreadful, the acting non-existent, and the pace sluggish. The movie is hard to sit through - period. However, that being said, it is also a miracle of a film when you consider that this thing was crafted by an entire community. You can see all the collective effort from the actors, the actual mayor and actual firemen and policemen, to the area location shots used. I also was really amazed at all the local businesses credited at the film's end with helping to finance or contribute in some way to the film. When you look at the film from that perspective, it is indeed quite an achievement. I didn't know anything about it before I sat down and watched it. Now that I have found out something about it, I am impressed. But make no mistake - I have no...NO...desire to sit through it again.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Oz, was the first original television show that HBO put onto its channel (in the 1 hour forma) and it remains to this day the very best... The story is simple... Oz is a surreal look into the lives of high maximum security prisoners at Oswald, primarily focusing on "Em City." Now there are many things to compliment this show on from the writing (which in my opinion was the best on television when this show aired), directing (top notch), acting (best of the best), and the characters... This show just literally blew my socks off... This show was a critically acclaimed gem until The Sopranos bowed, after that critics were salivating over that epic tale of trust and family to notice this compelling drama... Oz to me is a better show than Sopranos overall and it's a shame that i never won any major Emmy's... =/

kudos to all who were involved in this magnificent, gut - wrenching, show...

KUDOS
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and 9 years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.

How much farting, pooping, peeing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other sexual names (IMDb won't even let me post that word on here, yet here it is coming out of the mouths of 8 year olds. Think of the irony in that!) and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices." 

What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles? 

However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that. 

I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.

You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting. 

It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.

In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.
Some people thought this was funny because they loved the political issues discussed in this piece. I, however, am so tired of the state of the two party system in our country that I can't stomach propaganda from either side. I was hoping for a horror show, but got "cute" zombies and partisan bull crap. I watch my horror films to be scared. This didn't even attempt to be scary. Also, this doesn't have the wit of Romero in his political/cultural satire laced in his movies...this was a blatant, no-imagination story that was hard for me to stomach (for the wrong reasons). On the bright side, if you hate Bush...you'll love this (I'm not condoning hate or Bush with this statement)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Absolutely nothing. The movies that are great in this world are not recognized unless they are filled with gunshots, explosions, and death. This movie is filled with a man talking about showing you a more complex character than has been seen in many movies.

When a movie is incredibly fast paced but stays mostly in one location it has to be the work of a genius. Surprisingly enough, it is, this movie is directed by Oliver Stone and therefore is one of the best directed films of our time.

This movie's screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone and Eric Bogosian (Barry Champlain, main character.). With Oliver Stone's help, the screenplay was created as a seamless, rolling script which keeps you interested the entire time if you have any amount of intelligence. If you have an open mind about any subjects, and the wit to comprehend others, then this movie is something which you should find some way to watch, immediately.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.

How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).

Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.

As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.
This film must have done well in the box office, in order to give Gator the budget it deserves. This film had no budget, needed a script rewrite, and a better ending. There is flashes of brilliance in this movie. The boat ride scene, Burt driving the mean machine, and his chat with his parents. You can tell Burt is a Southerner, and not a actor. This movie shows what Gator would be like, Burt's best film. Too, bad this film did not have the same funding and was done on the Rush. 4/10

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

negative
Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."

On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.

But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.

That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I really enjoyed this Minghella epic, thought not quite so much as "The English Patient" (a modern-day classic). The first 20 minutes or so feel awkward, but as Inman (Jude Law) embarks on the journey back to his love Ava (Nicole Kidman), the film picks up in leaps and bounds and it becomes a very memorable, thoughtful romantic drama. Apparently it is fashionable to hate Kidman at the moment, but I don't agree at all, and she does well here. I actually think that the romance between Inman and Ada is weakly developed in the script (they really don;t get much screen time together to develop a relationship), but Law and Kidman give it their all and convince. Ada's journey is the crux of the film- she becomes a strong woman who can bear almost anything. Zellweger at first seems all wrong as Ruby, but she grows on you after all and sparkles in many of her later scenes. The film has beautiful photography and set design, but never really captures the true feel of a period piece. Jack White, in particular, has long straggly hair and a pale rocker's complexion that look completely out of place with the setting. Cillian Murphy fans will enjoying seeing the talented Irish actor in an early bit part, and Natalie Portman actually proves she can act in probably the film's most striking sequence. It's a pity that in "The Other Boleyn Girl" she's so inadequate.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

It's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.

However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention "western"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.

I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired...
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.

And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's "rubbish bin for totally useless things". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.

CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the "intentionally cheesy film-maker" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of "anti-artist". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.

Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With "Dancer In The Dark"? Can that bomb actually be topped?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.

As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in "The Untouchables") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable "Darkman", and superstardom in 1993 with "Schindler's List", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.

Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made "Get Carter", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind "Flash Gordon" as well...

It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw the film in its original theatrical release in Austin Texas. The old Paramount Theatre (I don't know if it still exists.) went all out with speakers around the walls connected accurately to all six channels. At 15 years of age, I was blown away. The concept of surround sound was completely foreign to music and film at that time.

I vividly remember at least three outstanding scenes where the surround sound made a huge impact. (Though please forgive me if time has warped my memories with inaccuracies.) The first was a travel by the camera through Catfish Row, alive with the sites and sounds of daily activity. You saw each one first, such as a blacksmith for example, then as the camera passed them by their sound would continue to be heard passing left or right down the side of the theater to the rear. The second was a marching band that was seen first in the front, then it marched past the camera splitting left and right. Not only did the sound of each instrument follow its own directional path, it also changed in timbre as it played toward you, to the side of you, and then away from you. And if that wasn't enough, they also accounted for the Doppler effect for each instrument as it went by. The third scene was near the end of the movie as Porgy is leaving Catfish Row for New York to look for Bess. He and about half the cast members pass by the camera as they leave the village with the same sound effects as the marching band. The other half of the cast/chorus sing along with them and also wave and voice goodbyes to Porgy and their other friends. The friends' replies can then be heard from the sides and the rear.

Surround sound was used with splendid effects throughout the movie. I think I remember a rock or something thrown from a pier and hearing it land in the water behind me. Little things like that were evident to theater-goers lucky enough to have the full six channels -- things that would just seem mundane in theaters without it.

I stayed in the theater for several showings. You could do that then. And I went back several more times before it left town. I never saw the movie again. It literally BEGS for release on DVD with restored picture fidelity and surround sound. I do hope someone somewhere has preserved it. Please, Gershwin family, allow it to be released before it is lost for good to other generations.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I swear I didn't mean to! I picked this out only since it looked good on the back! This movie wasn't scary at all and actually was very confusing. The demon wind was only actually used a couple of times and people were killed off pretty cheesily. The one major bright spot was seeing Sherri Bendorf from Slaughterhouse play in it. Seeing what happened to her, however, made up my mind for this little turkey of a film. A 3 out of 10. NEXT!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Visually, this film is interesting. Light is literally thrown in a way, together with cinematography and an alluring introduction before the titles, that had my hopes up at the start, but then - a b-movie is a b-movie is a b-movie, no matter how much spectacle is seen. This film surrounds the life of Albert Fish, one of the most well-known serial-killers in the world. Active around the start of the 20th century, Fish's life is hastily and blurry dealt with before before he started killing children at an old age. This film is based upon two tracks: Fish's life and that of William F. King, lead investigator of the case. What saves this film from becoming a Hallmark spectacle and debacle of the usual sort, whenever films about serial killers are concerned, is the direction, which is a double-edged sword; director Scott L. Flynn sheds focus enough upon the b-actors not to let their flaws shine through too much, but at the same times created a truly dull and stereotypical view of the American police through the King-angle. Sure enough he dealt quite thoroughly with Fish's meet with Grace Budd, the 10-year-old girl that he killed, even though I'm not really sure if her mother was the media-crazed person that Flynn really tries to emphasise that she was. I miss more psychological diving into Fish, not to mention the very little time which was spent on Fish's post-capture. All in all, interesting for those who are into serial-killers, but mostly a let-down; however, if the director will make another film about another serial-killer, I'd definitely see it in hopes that holes were patched-up.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

May Contain Spoilers.

An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.

If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.
The "Hunting Trilogy" of Rabbit Fire (1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952), and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! (1953) should be considered the comedic high water mark of the Chuck Jones-Michael Maltese collaboration. While they are seldom mentioned in lists of the "greatest" or "most important" cartoons in the history of animation, they are certainly THE FUNNIEST cartoons I've ever seen. Michael Maltese never got the credit that directors like Jones, Freleng or Avery got, but it's his dialogue and situations that make Warner Bros. cartoons, and these three in particular, some of the FUNNIEST ever made.

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

positive
This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film.

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

positive
This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original. Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is proved when he says "Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something only has meaning if we make it have meaning."

The commentary saves this movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs.

Overall I'd give this movie a 7/10.

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

positive
Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel  and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.
As talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a live audience.

On the other side, King's show is definitely much better than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to read the script.

When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones.

If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and/or researches everything written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000 times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive