cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Guys, what can I tell you? I'm Bulgarian. I can't remember how many times I talk to Americans and let alone that they don't have a slightest clue where is Bulgaria, but they say things like: "There's a war going on there, right?" or "I've never imagined that in a place like Bulgaria people have Internet" Go watch Bruce Campbell's "The Man With The Screaming Brain". I was curious about this movie, cause 1) I'm Bruce Campbell fan - "Evil Dead" trilogy and "The Adventures of Brisco County Jr." 2) The movie was shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, the second after "Alien Apocalypse" which is also nearly unwatchable. 3) I enjoy nice B-movies

Well... The movie presents our country like a never-ending Gypsy Town where they raid your car, wave around illegal guns, and you can get killed any moment. And Bruce's line "Bull$h1t Bulgaria" is more than offending.

Ted Raimi and Stacy Ceach make a great team, Bruce does his special - beats himself up and that's all. Nothing more to see here.

Peoeple give this movie 10 just because of Bruce's cult status, but it doesn't deserve more than 3. Waste of film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was one of the most boring horror movies I have seen in a long time (and I have seen a lot). Personally I liked the piercing take on it all that was original but other than that it was pretty unwatchable. I could not stand Dee Snider as an actor nor as a singer. I seemed that he was trying with everything he said to make it a memorable quote, which they weren't. I can get movies for free and I still didn't think it was worth the time to get.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Werner Herzog again explores the psyche of a man. In "Little Dieter...", we meet an effervescent, brilliant man who survived the war in Bavaria seeing starvation and strange sights, moved to the U.S. and fulfilled his dream of being a flier. War, food, death, survival, hoarding, planes, heads coming off... how one American is born. Herzog again sees madness as plane of existence and the surreal blends with the poignant as Herzog himself narratives this psychic travelogue of a German becoming an American who flies prop planes in a late 20th century war where the culmination of technology, pilgrimage and eating out of garbage cans with spoons is melded with constant optimism into a man redefined into American. As always with Herzog we are faced with florid madness, brilliance and what is man in the face of his own excesses, societal and personal. We laugh and cringe and are amazed at this man. Where else for this man but America?
Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.

Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.

They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.

Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash. 

Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.

Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or "Big Paulie" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, "This Thing Of Ours". Thankfully, the "Eddie Monroe" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh?
What's an example of a movie review?

Spoiler begin The movie focuses on three friends, Samantha (Summer Phoenix), Chris (Nick Stahl), and Owen (Aaron Paul). The movie starts out with Sam and Owen as the drug addicts, and Chris, the track star, as the one who takes care of them. As things get increasingly worse at home for Chris, he asks Sam what the drug is like. Sam is out of rehab and sober by this point and tells him it makes everything better. Chris then catches up with Owen and they start using. It takes chris two times till he is a " full time member". After some trouble with a dealer and a confession to Sam, she gets in again. So begins the downward spiral for them. Chris od's when he breaks a promise to Sam (I want some of the movie to be a surprise). He dies, Sam gets in to college to be an Architect, and Owen gets arrested. so ends the story

Spoiler ends. minor spoilers throughout

Nick stahl is amazing. He will have an Oscar one day. His portrayal of Chris was Heartbreaking. He was the only one that felt real in the movie as far as drug use goes. Aaron Paul who played Owen acted as if he were on speed not heroin. Summer Phoenix was fine, she is talented but what can i say Nick Stahl stole the movie. His drugged eyes, his slow movements, everything was perfect. 

The writers needed to show withdrawls in the movie. That is a main reason why people don't want to quit. Other then that there are hilarious scenes (the mall scene, and the Backstreet boy scene,man Stahl nailed the reactions right on the head.), Touching, sad scenes (Like the scene between Sam and Chris in her bedroom after he gets beat up, i bawled, and the park scene.). It was realistic too. Like S am using again when Chris wanted to flush the drug down the toilet, and Chris using again after he goes to Own's, even though he had been clean for two weeks, the pull was too strong. it is all realistic. 

Watch the movie for a great cast, great music, and a semi- truthful account of drug addiction.
why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in "The King and I". He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it.

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

positive
El Padrino :The Latin Godfather - while this seems to be a straight to DVD/video type movie- my fullframe copy obviously looked cropped- so maybe this flick had a limited theatrical run.And the title character appears to more of a Gringo than moi( I am half Honduran). Pretty typical rise and fall of a drugdealer movie with the A-list of B-list actors- Robert Wagner(drug lawyer),Kathleen Quinlan(crusading judge),Tiny Lister(mob enforcer),Gary Busey(child rapist),Brad Dourif(white power jailbird),Stacey Keach(bereaved Governor),Joann Pacula(bereaved Milf), Faye Dunaway(crusading lawyer) and Galo Make Canote as an uncredited party guest.This movie is pretty lame- I only watched it to kill time before the Skins game- the only thing that saved it was Jennifer Tilly as a crazed Latina drug dealing assassin - she was over the top and sexy-skanky that it was fun to watch her scenes.Not worth renting or seeking out. D+

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man "on the edge". But the scenery! Oh oh oh!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of "Der Hund Marie" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.

Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.

The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I felt that this movie had a lot of heart and must have been a labor of love for Eleanor Bergstein. The primary actors (Campbell Scott, Jennifer Beals, Yancy Butler, James Goodwin III, Patrick Stewart, and Leslie Caron) were very well selected and played their parts with excellence. It was a very uplifting movie that I wish was available on tape or DVD. A rare gem.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I'm afraid I must disagree with Mr. Radcliffe, as although he is correct in saying this isn't a comedy, it has many other merits. The plot is a little mad at parts, but I believe it it all fits together nicely, creating a satisfying, enjoyable film. The last scene was rather abysmal compared to the rest of the film, but the actual ending of the plot a few scenes previously is very interesting, showing just what someone will do under stressful circumstances.

I would recommend this film to fans of thrillers and action movies, but if you're a fan of gangster movies then as long as you don't expect expect something as deep as Goodfellas then you should still find it enjoyable.

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

positive
Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Ingmar Bergman's meditation on war concerns a couple living an idyllic existence on a small island off the coast (of what country isn't specified). Raging off in the distance is a war they know only from news reports. As they go about their day the war comes to them and it soon becomes a struggle for survival as both sides seem not to care about them. Bleak look at the human cost of war and those not readily engaged in battle but caught in the cross fire none the less. Its a movie ahead of its time as some 40 years since it was made the notion of armies at war where most of the casualties are the civilians have come of age. This is a dark disturbing film that is told from the average person's point of view with the complete sense of hopeless and confusion best expressed in the thought that kept running through my head, "what do I do now?". As an intellectual exercise the film is top notch, this is a film that will make you think. As an emotional film it is touching but never fully moving. I was never moved emotionally even as the horror of the situation made my brain do flip flops. (I should state that I admire Bergman intellectually for the ideas that he brings to the table, however I have never been moved by his films. I am not a "fan". I always sided with Fellini in the old film class argument as to who was better since he had more emotion to his films). Reservations aside this is require viewing especially since we live in a world were war, for most of us, is just a thing on a TV screen.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable. 

Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career. 

He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election. 

Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election. 

Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs. 

The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend. 

It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7/10.

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

positive
This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.

First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !

Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.

Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.

The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her 20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now.

There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history, this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage.

What a fine re-issue this would be!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie was horrendous it was sorta like accidentally watching a gay porn waiting for the girls but they just don't come....I waited for almost 2 hours for the damn scarecrows....they just don't come...instead it's just some dumb ass wandering through a dead cornfield with a camera it's a mix of Blaire witch and some bad episode of the twilight zone. And the best part is that as of October 23 2005 they started filming a sequel please don't be fooled by the box even though it looks exactly the same as the first dark harvest it's not lions gate bought the rights to the Maize:the movie and had the brilliant idea to release it as the sequel to the original dark harvest;which i thought was funny........the only thing they had in common was they were both shot in a cornfield....This Movie WILLLLLL not scare the crop out of you like the first one so just stay away!!!!!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides.

The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and all laughed at the comedy.

As would be expected of a movie with Mick Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it!

Mick Malloy did a good job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his membership.

Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist/love-interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others.

John Clarke's dour role as the bad guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance.

The not so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light comedy.

I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would also enjoy this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.

The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

From the beginning of this film,with it's "The Lost boys" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. "The Covenant" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really "directed" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed "artsy" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the "boys" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with "How about I make you my Whee-aytch!" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie "Stealth" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of "Charmed", and watch "The Lost boys" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch "The Covenant", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: OK, lets get one thing straight, i love dinosaur movies, even the bad ones. So with this in mind lets proceed. "Raptor" is a truly awful film, in fact its not even a film in its own right as it is cobbled together from bits of "Carnosaur", "Carnosaur 2" & "Primal Species - Carnosaur 3". There is some new footage with Eric Roberts as a sheriff and his busty sidekick running around looking confused, frightened or whatever it is there trying to convey (badly) on the emotional scale but then how can they react to something that was filmed several years earlier. The producers (yes Roger Corman i'm talking about you!) even went to the lengths of hiring 2 people from "Carnosaur" to play bit parts so there grisly death scenes can be reused! So this film is the cheapest of the cheap. Watch the 3 original movies, there no Oscar winners but they have some meritt and entertainment value but avoid "Raptor". Oh, it also has the most pointless sex scene that runs for nearly 10 minutes! Do you think they were trying to pad out the running time?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.

SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:

The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was "It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance." For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her 

Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me. 

Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.

She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.

Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt. 

Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.

It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.

The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. "Lola" just wasn't as good in this film as in "Run Lola Run", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And "Lola" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.

The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.

The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen!
Rozema's 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park is far superior to this ostensibly slightly more faithful film. The 1999 film is reviled by many Austen purists, but I admire the job Rozema did in making Mansfield Park her own. It may not be strictly Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but at least it was well-written, beautifully shot, and well-acted by a superior cast. I don't see how Austen purists can be any happier with this 2007 version from ITV (and rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre/PBS). The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting. I can't think of a worst miscast than Billie Piper as Fanny Price. Her look was all wrong (bleached hair and dark brows??) and her talent simply wasn't suited to the material. Sir Thomas looked constipated the whole time. Michelle Ryan as Mariah was on autopilot, as were the actors who portrayed the Crawfords (when I think how superior Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz were in the '99 version, I just kinda shake my head).

I haven't seen the 1983 version, so I can't comment on it, but I'd advise anyone who's curious to give the '99 version a chance. Read the novel before or after and make up your own mind.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went over.

Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in this case). It's basically a rape/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky?

PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics.

Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand behind this one. 8/10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.

Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.

The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in "Outbreak", "Armageddon", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.

The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.

The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.

The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.

This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).

Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is a clumsy mishmash of various ghost-story and suspense-thriller conventions, none of them fully realized and all of them rather irritating. The script was perfunctory. The acting, ditto. The scary FX were mostly laughable except for one exquisite seat-jumper moment that scared me even though I saw it coming a mile off. Now, explain to me someone why you would need ghosts, AND black magic, AND arcane ritual objects, AND Count Crapula CG boogeymen, AND psychic investigators, AND family curses, AND Irish superstitions, AND bowls of milk left out for the supernatural beings, AND possessed dollies, all in the same movie? With all that you would expect more than one good moment of horror, but this movie is lame, lame, lame.
Free Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you "Cancelled", "Chickenlover", "It Hits The Fan", "Death Camp Of Tolerance", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

My Father The Hero used to be my favorite movie when I was Younger. It's about Andre, a divorced french man who wants to take his beautiful daughter (katharine heigl} on a vacation, hoping to get a little closer to her. But of course, Nicole isn't that easy to get along with, she just started puberty, i'm guessing. She is angry and hurt that her father was never there for her and decides to give him a hard time. One day at the beach, Nicole meets handsome Ben, and she makes up a wild story about her and her dad. The whole island gets involved and the movie turns into a hilarious wild entertaining movie. I would give My Father The Hero 8/10
I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:

"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."

Please there is nothing to say anymore...

Sorry for some bad English.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.

Nathaniel Purez
Write a negative movie review.

I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).
This film certainly wasn't very sophisticated. No, the humor was in fact pretty dumb now that I think about it. But, also while I think of it, I did laugh--proving decent comedy doesn't need to be very deep.

Fatty Arbuckle is the definite star of this short, despite Buster Keaton's appearing in the film as well. He is the butcher in an old-time grocery store. A lot of silly stuff occurred in the store and I think I laughed the most at the coffee grinder sequence--you'll just have to see it yourself.

Anyway, later, Fatty's girlfriend is forced to go to a girls' school and because he can't stand to part, he dresses in drag and infiltrates the school. Arbuckle is one ugly woman! So, for silly and unsophisticated fun, see this film. It won't change your life and is a very slight picture, but it's also fun.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive