cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.

Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.

Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.

All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.

Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car. 

Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.

What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen. 

Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.

Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into.
Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I really don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:

When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.

I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.

First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...

If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.

Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those "making of" DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for "meta," but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very "French" in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) "works," but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended.

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

positive
I live up here in croc territory and remember well the true events that inspired this movie. Our guts fall out each time we hear of a croc attack. BLACK WATER is, quite simply, the best croc movie I have ever seen. While I loved ROGUE last year for all its effects and splashy scenes, it was the local scenes that captured our audience. We laughed in ROGUE more than anything. BLACK WATER, however, really resonated with the eeriness and fear that you can experience when you are alone in the mangroves (you guys call them swamps or bayous - but they're mangroves). Every tourist should see this film before heading to the Northern Territory. The ending was a bit of a letdown after the rest of the film, but I'll be adding this one to my DVD collection when it becomes available.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The movie has an excellent screenplay (the situation is credible, the action has pace), first-class direction and acting (especially the 3 leading actors but the others as well -including the mobster, who does not seem to be a professional actor).

I wish the movie, the director and the actors success.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is the worst movie I have seen to date. 85 minutes of utterly bad acting,(half the cast seem to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome) ghastly wigs, strange make-up (including tide lines around wig areas) and holier than thou characters with holier than thou dialogue that makes you want to puke. One comical aspect of this film, if you have the patience to watch it, is the sheer overwhelming number of costume changes the unfortunate cast appear in from scene to scene - was this film backed by a catalogue manufacturer of desperately dodgy pastel casual wear? Were the cast paid in clothes for their efforts? They certainly did not deserve paying with anything else! This appalling effort of a film delivers a rambling plot in the first half, blending into an equally confused arch Christian biblefest in the latter. The entire cast and production team should be burnt at the stake, or at the very least crucified!

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.

The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.

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

negative
When I went to see this movie i thought that this would just be another chic flick i would have to endure with my sister. Plus too Amanda Baynes last movie was not so hot, making me doubt the movie for she is the lead actress.However within 5mins i was laughing so hard i had tears in my eyes, the jokes were not "out there" that it took more then a second to understand it but very funny. The script was not too complex that I could not understand the love triangle but was very true to the original play by Shakepeare. I loved every minute of it so much that I kicked a guy two seats away from me in a fit of laughter lol!!! very embarrassing! I'd definitely advise people to see this movie especially girls as the guys in this movie are hot hot hot!!(lol) so much so that I might just get it on DVD.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait. 

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hmmm! is it worst film ever? well sort of, for some of the cast its a shame to see them in such a film but hey if it pays the bills why not, as for the film well. OK cg effects not to bad for such a cheap film ,music is just about OK again for a cheap film, end credits are OK lol

BAD to many to list but, cast, acting, sets, script, ending..what the hell ,Drac..........worst Drac EVER!, many more but can not be bothered to put them all down.

Idea was OK but needed ten times the budget and more thought and much better lighting and style and change all bad points, i do say however to see this film so you to can say"What the FU%$ was that all about"as the credits run.Also its kind of a must see just to see how bad it is.

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

negative
I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by "coldshitaction" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.

First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.

But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.

Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.

I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.

After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.

"Be In" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting "Floating In Space" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.

While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing "it was fun man" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.

Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing "Starshine" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).

I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
OK enough already. this is a terrible piece of television. the camera work is appalling (do i have to remind you of the crunchy gravel so loud you can hardly hear the actors speak) lady bertram has the most annoying voice in the entire world. anna massey is 'acting' in such an unbelievable fashion. and the lack of chemistry between fanny and edmund is beyond beyond. also the bertram girls aren't pretty enough, and the guy playing henry crawford is awful. to say the camera work is dodgy is an understatement. i watched this adaptation over Christmas, and i think under any other circumstances i would not have been able to endure this, and certainly would have not been able to justify the wasted time.

i am a fan of faithful to jane adaptations. so i could not bear the film adaptation or the recent pride and prejudice movie. but see any other adaptation instead, even emma is better than this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The sad thing about Frontline is that once you watch three or four episodes of it you really begin to understand that it is not far away from what happens in real life. What is really sad is that it also makes extremely funny.

The Frontline team in Series One consists of Brian Thompson ( Bruno Lawrence )- a man who truly lives and dies merely by the ratings his show gets. Occasionally his stunts to achieve these ratings see him run in with his Line Producer Emma Thompson ( Alison Whyte ); a woman who hasn't lost all her journalistic integrity and is prepared to defend moral scruples on occasions. The same cannot be said of Reporter Brooke Vandenberg ( Jane Kennedy )- a reporter who has had all the substance sucked out of her- so much so that when interviewing Ben Elton she needs to be instructed to laugh. Her reports usually consist of interviewing celebrities ( with whom she has or hasn't 'crossed paths' with before ) or scandalous unethical reports that usually backfire. Martin De Stasio ( Tiriel Mora ) is the reporter with whom the team relies on for gravitas and dignity, as he has the smarts of 21 years of journalism behind him. His doesn't have principles so much as a nous of what makes a good journalistic story, though he does draw the occasional line. Parading over this chaos ( in name ) is Mike Moore ( Rob Sitch ) an egotistical, naive reporter who can't see that he's only a pretty face for the grubby journalism. He often finds his morals being compromised simply because Brian appeals to his vanity and allows his stupidity to do the rest.

Frontline is the sort of show that there needs to be more of, because it shows that while in modern times happiness, safety and deep political insight are interesting things; it's much easier to rate with scandal, fear and tabloid celebrities.
What's an example of a movie review?

Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing "Que Sera, Sera" was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10.
What's an example of a movie review?

I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies".

Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronstället.

This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.

Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.
Jessica is a young, virginal and very innocent girl who lives with her aunt on a remote ranch. Jessica is also a powerful psychic, capable of dowsing, retro-cognition, precognition and esp. When young and handsome Gordon Hawthorne comes to visit, he is instantly skeptical of Jessica's powers...until her skills uncover a lost wristwatch and unearth an ancient treasure chest. However, the treasure chest holds the severed head of a centuries dead satanist named Gideon Drew, whose powers are far stronger than Jessica's. Despite her warnings of the evil in their midst, Drew manages to mentally enslave everyone unfortunate to make eye contact with him. But Drew wants Jessica most of all. He needs her dowsing skills to unearth his body, so that he can rise from the dead and rule over the human race. Will Jessica's powerful fleur de lis, combined with Gordon's love, ward the ancient evil off before it can destroy them all?

This isn't a very interesting movie. It certainly could have been - the basic story is interesting and imaginative, but the acting is leaden and the whole thing moves much too slowly to hold interest. Jessica is also too innocent - almost annoyingly so, and Gordon, her love interest, is wooden, stiff and totally emotionless. None of the characters are very likable, and the low budget is painfully obvious. A rushed ending also doesn't help matters. Avoid, unless it's the MST3K version.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I've seen this movie twice on Transilvania International Film Festival(TIFF), the movie is in competition and I really hope that Esteban Sapir will get one of the awards (at least the best image award). 

As a silent cinema fan I'm interested in contemporary movies that quote or recreate the language of the yester-year cinema. The previous reviewer emphasized the quotes from Fritz Lang and Fr. W. Murnau. As I see it, the movie references directly Lang's Metropolis, and the allegorical-parabolic character of his plots. But I didn't see Murnau in it. There's a more obvious Melies-homage though: the Moon with a (here cigar-smoking) human face, and the paper-made, painted mountains and city-landscapes. I enjoyed the film mostly for its visuals, and in the meantime I found very interesting the story on muteness, and the creative means of communication used by the inhabitants of the voiceless city. From this perspective this movie is an unique reflexion on the muteness of the silent cinema, because in the films of the silent period one can hardly find stories with mute characters. In this case can be questioned whether the story on the stolen voices was the motivation for the silent film form, or there's an intention to play upon the muteness of the silent films. Another example of this kind of reflexion I found in Guy Maddin's Careful,where the inhabitants of a mountain-village have restrictions in using their voices. I intend to write a paper on it, if you know movies related to this topic, please let me know!!! 

I highly recommend Esteban Sapir's film to every moviegoer (one of the critics called it: the jewel of the festival).

PS: Winners were announced, and the film won the award for best cinematography!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A rather charming depiction of European union beginning to operate among the young generation as representatives of that group learn to live together in an apartment in Barcelona, where they are all studying on international fellowships. Central to the story is Xavier ( Romain Duris),who may have lived a rather conventional life with his mother in France, but who quickly becomes a leader in the group, helping them deal with landlords and other problems. He learns about life and love rapidly. Duris has a wholesome appearance and gives a fine performance. The rest of the cast also play well. Occasionally they all lapse into English when they want to make sure they are communicating,uncertain about all their apartment mates' ability to understand French or Danish or whatever the languages may be. Cinematography noteworthy including fine views of Barcelona and its famed Gaudi towers.
This is a clever and entertaining film about the backroom battling that went on to choose a successor to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. However, the movie's ultimate thesis, that David Letterman's superior comedic talents were overlooked because of his controversial nature, and the show diminished by the enthronement of an inferior Jay Leno in the leading comedy program on television is simply untrue, as anyone who has watched both Leno and Letterman perform can see for themselves. The hard and simple truth is exactly as one NBC exec stated in the film "Jay Leno is the funniest man in America." And David Letterman is not. Once you realize this, then much of the machinations in the film become irrelevant. Ultimately, the whole film amounts to little more than sour grapes by Letterman fans, who just cannot accept that the better comic was chosen by people whose business it is to know these kind of things. The final proof is that despite Letterman's early lead, possibly because of the hype that emerged from the battle for Tonight Show succession, Leno's show has consistently proved to be the more popular, thus, in my mind at least, refuting Letterman's claims to be unfairly robbed of his rightful inheritance.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "The Great Dictator" is, arguably, one of Charlie Chaplin's most widely-known films. It is notorious for it's blatant satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Until watching it, I only knew of it's fame. Now I know how much the film deserves it.

The film basically shows the exploits of the somewhat clumsy, ambitious, short-fused and impressive dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel; and with him, his near and dear staff: Field-Marshall Herring and Herr Garbitsch. Also, it entails the exploits of an amnesiac, emotional and often clumsy Jewish barber, a veteran of the First World War.

Stopping with the plot, I would like to say that this film has various qualities that make it both unique and wonderful. While the comedy is decidedly both verbal and slapstick and incidental, the entirety of the film shows how serious it takes Nazism or aggressive nationalism as a theme with various interludes. Chaplin's impeccable acting skills range far and wide in the film, he keeps revving it up and up until he simply explodes. Paulette Goddard's position as an ambitious Jewish would-be revolter and Henry Daniell's delivery of a nasal, calm-as-Death-serious-as-a-heart-attack lines makes for wonderful viewing.

Further, one aspect of the film is what makes it so special: it pulls no punches. It isn't "covert", it has no business being covert. It is an "overt", blatant, in-your-face, obvious lampooning of both Hitler and Nazism.

To sum up briefly, watch it. Just watch it, you'll see it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there? 

Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?

A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36?? 

Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.

It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.

Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?

Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.

Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.

Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence

I don't think so

I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)


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

negative
Wow.this is a touching story! First i saw 'Rescue Dawn'.I didn't 'like' it. And now i have seen the person , Dieter Dengler , about whom this story is being told by Herzog.Very Impressing.Dieter is a driven human being who encountered the most opposite emotions in his live on this earth.what an extraordinary life this person has led. His tale about the capture by the Patet Lao/Vietcong and thus his suffering is horrifying but what's most impressive is his incredible will to survive.How could he find the strenght ? In a haunting way , Dieter is telling us in full flowing sentences about his terrible ordeal during his captivity... he is a great storyteller and Herzog does him the justice this brave man deserves.

In my opinion.'Little Dieter needs to fly ' tells it all ! , leaving nothing to the imagination , thus making ' Rescue dawn ' a superfluous film. The horror doesn't get more real than in the words of Dieter Dengler himself.He totally succeeds in painting the picture.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

It was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A charming movie enhanced by the musical and vocal background, especially during the competition. My understanding is that there was never a soundtrack but could you, through your sources, advise me where I might get information on the singer and the likelihood of getting a copy of the song he sang. Your help would be appreciated. The song really touched me and my wife and we would like to secure a copy wherever possible so that we might play it as background music when we have our family and friends over for our "Italian Nights". If you are able to get this information to us we would be eternally grateful. Even if you can advise of the studio contact so that we might go direct.

Regards,

John Payling
I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general

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

positive
This film is hard to knock. It follows in the tradition of Pulp Fiction, yet succeeds further by stamping its own unique style. The cast is awesome, the script is great - and things like the odd (Pulp Fiction-esque) time-sequencing is done brilliantly. I particularly like how the images provided in flash back vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story at the time. When it is one of the indoctrinated criminals everything is flashy and cool, but when it is the hero's recollection everything is skanky and disgusting.

This is an awesome film - and so I am extremely annoyed to find that I cant buy it anywhere!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this.
I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.

Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid? 

Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This show was crap when it first came on. The first actress that played the daughter didn't fit the role, the writing was hit or miss, and Damon Wayans CLEARLY wasn't comfortable doing such a cornball family friendly show. The chemistry between himself and Tisha Cambell (they're long time friends, as are all of the Wayans clan with Tisha's husband and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett) DID work so they retooled the show. Once it returned, they recast the daughter, made the son much dumber (a la Eric from "Boy Meets World")and made the youngest daughter into a genius...(later they gave her a little genius boyfriend to do comedic guest appearances). The show, while if often rollercoasters from over the top buffoonery to being corny walks the line enough to keep it as a show that you can see Damon Wayans be comfortable in his own skin on the set (especially since the main writers, directors and consultants were ALL members of the Wayans family) AND in his character. Once everyone had been on the show for a while, they worked to everyone in the casts strengths and were able to make a consistently funny show on the air.

However, there is TOO MUCH buffoonery, too many over the top antics, and oftentimes too much chaos happening in the life of the Kyle family. They made Junior TOO STUPID, they also made the eldest daughter an attractive, clumsy idiot from time to time and the youngest daughter wasn't even spared by the writers. I feel they jumped the shark and signed the shows death warrant when Junior got his girlfriend pregnant, she moved in and he married her and her parents were introduced (Junior's wife's father's character makes me WINCE just thinking about him). The show remained funny...but it was a UPN show on ABC if that makes any sense to the reader.

The reruns are funny enough, but I'm relieved it's over...there was nowhere left to go with it. When it's bad it's REALLY BAD. It tends to be cornball at times but at least he was a black man who had a sitcom make it to syndication on a major network..Who can say that for themselves now? (Given the CW merger and the "brownout" on TV networks lately, that is). One.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I've seen a few of Mr. Boorman's movies and didn't like much of them. Not that they are bad movies, quite the contrary are good movies, but not content I personally found entertaining. However I think Where the Heart Is, although made to cater to the less than art savvy American audience, is masterful as satire, and as social commentary of the times it was made in. I've had to replace this movie in my collection at least a half a dozen times, since every time I loan it out to someone I know could appreciate it's artistry on all its levels, my copy fails to come back home to me, lol. The last time took 7 years to replace it since it was out of print for VHS sales, has never been made as a DVD that I know of, and had to wait till one of the premium cable channels ran it before I could tape it again.

My favorite aspect after the nail-on-the-head social commentary is the paintings by Timna Woollard. I've searched for 15 years to find anyone or anywhere that could lead me to where her work is available for sale. Or better yet a copy of the paintings in the movie without the ending credits rolling over them. I have a room in my house that I dedicated to putting copies of her paintings in, and no one seems to know if it ever was released as a coffee table book, or video aquarium, or as a documentary of her work. If anyone does know of where I can acquire any sort of copy of Timna's work or where her studio is in England, please do not hesitate to contact me via email.