cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
****Probably will contain spoilers****

After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.

Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.

I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\

The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).

The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.

I rate the movie 3 out of 10.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The consequences of love: There is really something special about this film but it's very hard to put your finger on. It is a love story of sorts but not really one i've seen before. It has several love themes running throughout the film. One mans love for a younger woman, a younger mans love for his older brother, the mafias love of money at all costs these are just some that intertwine in a story that has you guessing or rather not knowing where and how it will end. The cast are all superb from Sophia the teasing barmaid to the straight faced-ness of titta the films central character. With simple yet affective camera work bounced off an ever-changing soundtrack that mixes low-fi trip hop with lush orchestral pieces. The style of the film changes beautifully using several styles without ever getting cluttered. Love has never looked so diverse and powerful as the tales we are told rumble towards various conclusions. The director has married old and new into a rich Italian classic.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where

she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another

young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot

is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.

Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.

He filled this role easily like a well used glove.

The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).

Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.

ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).

He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.

Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.

In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.

It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.

Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.

It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.

Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: /*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */

Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.

BTW, the previous poster noted: "Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene."

I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.

Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as "great" or "classic", to be "slow" or "boring", this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.

For me though, it is a full 10/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Zombie Planet seems like an example of good ideas and laudable ambition overstepping budget. I thought the explanation for the zombies was real original and gnarly, and loved the dog munching in the exposition scene. The rest of the gore was effective in a low budget kinda way, but too spaced apart throughout the movie. The problem was that it was too long and anti-climatic. Sure, they had a intriguing, if derivative plot line, and a similarly familiar but cool setting, but a low budget zombie film really needs to be goretastic to make an impression and there just weren't enough red moments in this for me. I think there was surplus of cheap looking and bloodless fight scenes as well especially given the generally minimal grue. Plus, for a two hour movie, there's very little closure at the end, and though it kinda makes me want to track down Zombie Planet 2, I felt a tad cheated. So probably most worth looking for the two of them.
I was lucky enough to watch this film in the recently concluded international film festival here. I was actually able to watch another South Korean film (The Power of Kangwon Province) but Christmas in August caught my attention more. The story is simple enough, the usual boy-meets-girl (or shall we say girl-meets-boy?). What made it special for me was how it was rendered. We can say that the movie was quiet and endearing. We don't have flashy and contrived romance here, only two ordinary beings made wonderful by their friendship and unexpressed love for one another. I also loved how the movie used pictures as expressions of relationships past and present. I wished that this was shown here as a regular film. I'm sure it would call out to a bigger audience.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.

 Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where

***SPOILER AHEAD*** 

Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

If they had a Zero out of 10 I would of entered it. Everyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves taking money from the public. I don't know how films like this get released Video or Pay Channel. I am disappointed in Vincent Gallo. Val Kilmer was in it for about 8 minutes, so I can't get that mad at him. Only the person who listed him to be the star in it. It is like Marlon Brando in Superman.There is no plot except Gallo searching and finding his friend in the catacombs. Why they were searching for the gates of hell only the director knows. They should of kept this film in Moscow and burned it for fire to keep all the homeless extras warm for the night. There is nothing more to say about this film that all the other reviewers have written. I wish I could forget this movie it hurts my brain.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at 70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer enthralled.

Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however, and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento, one of the most original movies of our time.
This film is hilarious. Brilliant comedy, but only because of one actor. Chris Farley. The best 'comedy-actor' I have ever seen. It's something special about him. He is just so funny.

What a shame he is not with us anymore. He will sorely be missed.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.

The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.

The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the "wishmaster")father to be released from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action, great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again after all these years!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: "I always wanted to ski down mount Everest". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.

He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?

OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest" was just too long for the tape box.

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

negative
This Blake Edwards film isn't too sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a drama or a musical. No matter, the sheer presence of Julie Andrews, is reason enough to see this comedy-drama-musical-spy spoof. Julie is beautiful and uses her many talents, throughout the film. Rock Hudson looks tired, but he's is more than fine, as Julie's romantic interest. Authentic World War I cars and planes, add to the appeal. Overall, the film is very entertaining. The DVD release is an edited (by Blake Edwards) version of the original release. Supposedly, this is the only version that Edwards would allow; but, Turner Classic Movies has shown the complete (theatrical release) version, recently. Recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....

Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: "Howdy!" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.
I went to the pre-screening of "Rory O'Shea Was Here." I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Before this was shown on MTV or VH1 it was at my local theatre playing just before the main movie. I remember this short movie more than the film I saw that day. It was the first time I had ever a music movie like this, but I will tell you that seeing on the big screen from a 35mm print in a darken theatre gives it a much better impact than seeing a cropped pan and scan version on VH1 at Halloween.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I hoped to learn something from this movie, but I was disappointed. It is all about Rommel and lauds him as a great general, but at no time in this entire movie did we ever get an idea of why he was great. What made him so successful? Was it his drive, his unwillingness to accept defeat, his discipline with his men? I was looking for a Patton-like rendition that really gets into the character, but this fell way flat. Most of the dialog is contrived and sensationalized, and feels stale and artificial. There is some good action here and there, but not much. The tail end of the story, which discusses his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, was the most informative part and probably the most interesting. But as a history lesson on Germany's greatest general, this was a failure.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.

It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.

The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.

The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.

(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.

The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10
Determine the sentiment:

This is an unusual film because although it was made by Twentieth-Century Fox because it's one of the few pairings of Barbara Stanwyck and her future husband, Robert Taylor. Barbara Stanwyck had been making films for many different studios (RKO, Paramount and Selznick) at about the time she made THIS IS MY AFFAIR, but Taylor was an MGM contract player so he only appeared in this film because he was loaned to Fox--something studios occasionally did during this era.

The film is interesting because many real-life people have roles in the film, though the piece is otherwise pure fiction. You'll see actors playing William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey. I can't recall any film with McKinley or Dewey in it as a character, though I do remember Roosevelt from THE WIND AND THE LION and a couple other films. Three cheers for seeing a "lesser President" in a film as a major character! 

The film begins with McKinley taking a young lieutenant (Robert Taylor) aside and asking him to be a special agent for him--and telling no one--not even the Secret Service. That's because the President fears that someone within the agency is tipping off a gang that has been making a long string of robberies--all based on inside information. So it's up to Taylor (who is NOT known for his manly roles--especially at this stage of his career) to pose as a thug and find the gang responsible AND the inside man.

However, there are two serious complications. First, while he is able to find the gang members, one of the gang member's step-sister is Stanwyck. Taylor finds that he's fallen in love with her but he must also do his duty and turn them in to the authorities. Second, because McKinley is the only other person who knows the truth, SERIOUS problems develop when McKinley is assassinated and Taylor is on death row for the crimes!!! 

The film did a nice job of creating a story and placing it within a historical context. While today most people don't remember McKinley nor remember that he was assassinated, the film is set in this interesting time period. The acting is pretty decent, as the stars are supported by Victor McLaglen and Brian Donlevy, though I must admit that Donlevy's role was pretty tame and ordinary compared to many of his other film roles. Overall, it's very interesting, well written and not too sappy in the romance department. A good outing for all.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.

Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.

For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.
Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.

The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns

As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story. 

I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie's basic premise is that everyone in the world can know that a person is gay except for that person. And that a man who likes show tunes, has good taste, and is neat in appearance MUST be a homosexual. Yes, the movie is funny in parts, but the basic premise is to homophobic and insulting that the entire movie crumbles into something that is quite painful to sit through. The performances, particularly Joan Cusak and Kevin Kline are very good.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film.
A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, "I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army." By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring "The Iron Rose"), until I found out about "Night of the Hunted". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is  yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.

Great great movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Carlos Mencia is not funny. From his stand up specials to this train wreck of a TV series, Carlos Mencia is not funny. I have been trying to convince people for two years that he steals other comedians' jokes, and as far as his comedy material goes, he is a regular "Johnny-come-lately" with far less than sub-par results. Psycho astronaut jokes? Britney Spears breakdown jokes? I hope this is only a scheduling error, but come on Carlos and Comedy Central, those topics, and many others, have run the gamut of late night TV show hosts' opening monologues, Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and many, many others. Lampooning ethnic and racial stereotypes? Comedy stands no chance of evolving with Carlos Mencia around. Perhaps people, especially viewers and Comedy Central executives will get the point since this week's issue of "New York" magazine accurately labeled him: "Carlos Mencia, unrepentant joke-filcher."

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: (May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.

"Nose-dive... WOW!"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is a top car flick (Its a work of art/ YER a work of art!) all classic cars no plastic fantastic, I have watched it over & over again I have worn out two video tapes, And will wear out lots more. Lots more car lovers young or old will love this film & watch it more than 1 time! so hire it or buy it (just see it) I wish they would make more (car) movies like this V8 power not gassed up little whipper snippers!!!!

(shes a 351 right?)(motor magic) (the heap the chariot)

(you've got to learn to feel the power)
Determine the sentiment:

Wow, What a wonderful film-making! Mr. Im has done it, again!

His last work, ChunHayang (2000) was a great film, but this one is even greater. Selected as an official feature film in the Canne Festival for the second time in a two-year row, this 66 years old director is getting better and better at what he is making of with a Korean culture.

Simply, Chihwaseon is about a great Korean painter, '(Ohwon) JANG, Seung-Up' who was considered as a prodigy in the late Nineteenth century. The basic story of this film tells the life of Jang, Seung-up, and the historical background of his time. He was an orphan, but in his teens, he was picked up by a noble man, called, Kim, Byung-Moon. This Mr.Kim becomes a mentor of Jang as well as life-long friendship, and continues to support his great talent that he knew in the first place. With Jang's great effort and natural talent, his fame grows faster and faster as the strength of his country, Korea falls down.

Jang's personality portrayed in the film is very complicated, and one of the best actors in Korea, Choi, Min-sik goes deep inside of Jang's soul. Suffering eyes reveal the struggle of a great artist's life. He is very serious sometimes, but all of sudden, he changes to a wild maniac. He drinks like an alcoholic, and sleeps with courtesans anytime. Even, he said in the movie, "without an alcohol and a woman, I can't draw. (An alcohol and women are my only inspirations)" In the peak of the fame, to develope his own style, he travels all around the country, and never gives up his pride as an artist for the authority or money. I don't want to give out every details, but I think you surely did get some ideas about the film.

The most amazing thing about this film is a cinematography. It is just so breath-taking how they captured every beauty of landscapes. Yes, each scene is like a work of Jang's painting. And the script is perfect, too. It mainly deals a deeper meaning of what makes a true artist. For example, Kim advices to Jang in the movie that 'before one holds a paintbrush, one has to set an aim in life'. This is very moving and inspiring line, and there are many more.

Go See this Film if you are going to be in the Canne Festival.

Chihwasun will be the greatest film ever made that deals with the life of a painter in film history.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the "Tories" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.

In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.

In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.

One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human "props" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.

This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.

The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.

Hope it runs again soon.