cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
"One True Thing" is the kind of movie where the audience is inspired greatly greatly inspired performances. I am not necessarily stating that the film is uplifting, because it isn't. In fact, the movie is down right depressing. I am trying to say that it takes a lot for a movie to generate emotional tears from an attending crowd.

I cried in "One True Thing," enough to conclude that this is one of the most emotionally powerful movies of 1998. The characters were perfectly casted. The performances are all guaranteed Oscar Nominees, especially Meryl Streep, who portraits the dying Kate extremely well. Her acting alone was enough to make the movie excel to the point of recommendation, and gives you a new point of view at her. I also thought that Renée Zellweger portrayed a realistic single, free-wheeling woman who has to take care of their own mother. The other cast members including William Hurt & Tom Everett Scott, were also superb. The script of this movie was really fantastic. It is kind of funny how the movie's concept has to do with the controversial happenings in my local area. You see, I live near Lansing, Michigan, and right now a big issue here is assistant suicide doctor Jack Kavorkian's (excuse my miss-spelling if so) ways have just been outlawed. The public will vote on this according to their beliefs in November After watching "One True Thing" it really changed my perspective at this topic, although I have always believed in it. Without revealing the ending of the film I will simply say that suicide is a distant theme in this movie and I think it fits in accurately with the gorgeous story. Overall, this movie does indeed have more emotional impact than "Titanic," "Saving Private Ryan" or any other tearjerker released in the last few years. I think that is because the main idea of this movie is that this kind of thing happened every day, so it relates better to an audience. And indeed, that this could happening to you.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Having not read the book, I was more open to the fresh interpretation that each director gives to their medium (which is film, not "to the letter" reproductions of literature)on this particular film. I was happy that the holocaust that occurred in Russia (and it's neighboring countries) finally received some attention. The Nazis were particularly cruel to Russians and Russian Jews. If you read the histories and see the monuments built in Smolensk and nearby regions you will understand this movie and why many kept silent when they should've spoken up.

It was certainly time for this to be chronicled and I hope that more stories will come out of this. It's high time.

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

positive
Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The producers of this film should be sued for the misrepresentation of copyrighted materials, namely the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook. Fear and ignorance breed the sort of mindless propaganda that inspire garbage like this film. If any of you have any doubts about the innocence of Dungeons & Dragons, why don't you go to your local hobby store and see about sitting in with a gaming group, so you can see for yourself that D&D is nothing to be afraid of.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful "Chappy" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.
What's an example of a movie review?

The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.

"Sappy Bullfighters" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.

This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, "What's the Matador?", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.

Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short "Ants In The Pantry". To see Besser say "I can't see, I can't see!" and have Larry say the simple "Why can't you see?", while Besser gets to quip "I got my eyes closed", is just wrong on all levels.

The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be "Pepe", his dog.

One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.

I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more "experimental", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.

Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is definitely a "must see" film. The excellent Director Alain Chabat (also acting as Ceasar) has managed to capture the very essence of the "Adventures of Astérix" (the French comic books it's based upon) and to create a fantastically modern and intelligent comedy, which is also an homage to the world of animated films. This movie is so funny, so full of jokes (both visual and spoken) that it might take you two or three screenings before you notice them all, between your bursts of laughter. The only drawback is that a non-French audience (or at least a non-French speaking audience) might not get all the "private jokes". There are so many dialogues impossible to translate, so many situations directly related either to the comic books or to the French way of life, that the fun might be lessened. However, it's still totally worth seeing for the beautiful picture, the amazing stunts, the music, the totally crazy atmosphere and the excellent acting. All actors are great, but the film would not be the same without Jamel Debouze, Gérard Darmon and Edouard Baer. And please don't EVER compare this magnificent film to the terrible previous one based on the same comic books : "Astérix et Obélix Contre César" and directed by Claude Zidi.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A documentary about a nomadic tribe in Tibet going out to a dry lake to get salt does not sound very appealing. But this is not a popcorn movie but a visual cultural feast whereby you partake of a rapidly vanishing morsel of humanity. The superstitions, the epic songs and poetry, the faith of a people who truly believe in following their own unique patterns of life are something the West had in the times of Homer but that is now, unfortunately, completely foreign to most of us in the "developed" world. We have lost the spiritual serenity that comes from following well established patterns of life, often with dire mental consequences in our increasingly soulless society. The film makers have woven us intimately into the fabric of these materially poor but spiritually rich and scrappy saltmen. And made us see that there was more to life than the shopping mall and pop culture. So disconnect your land lines, turn off your cells, turn off the driveway lights and sit back and ease yourself into a timeless adventure.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream "a classic" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.

Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.

The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in "2001", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.

If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out "Forbidden Planet".
Let's face it, there is no perfect production of Hamlet, it's simply far too long and varied and cerebral to get completely perfect across the board, especially what with the challenges of Elizabethan English and Shakespeare's abstruse dialogue. In any staging of it, there are bound to be certain moments, scenes, or intonations that one disagrees with. I've seen a lot of filmed Hamlet productions: Olivier, Gibson, Branagh, Scott, and now this BBC film with Jacobi. In terms of faithful, full-length productions, this one ranks up there with the very best.

Most Hamlet productions are drastically cut, because to perform the entire play takes a stage-time of four to five hours. This production appears to be complete -- that is, ALL of the original Shakespeare dialogue is intact -- and so it's essential for scholars and Shakespeare-lovers. And though the lines seemed rushed on rare occasion (for those less completely familiar with the text), for the most part the script is well-acted, well-spoken, and well-performed. Subtitles are available and very helpful, although upon occasion they lag slightly behind.

Jacobi does a quite admirable job with theatre's longest and most impossible role. I actually cried when Hamlet dies, and I don't think I've done that before. Patrick Stewart (as Claudius) and Claire Bloom (as Gertrude) are excellent, as are Lalla Ward (Ophelia) and David Robb (Laertes), and the rest of the very on-point cast. Sets are minimal, so we can thankfully concentrate on the play without distraction or attention paid to non-essentials.

At 3 hours and 45 minutes, this full-length Hamlet is a long haul to sit through, but again, if you want the real deal, it's 100% worth it, even if one needs to take an intermission for oneself. I highly recommend this production to all Shakespeare lovers and scholars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.

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

negative
I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.

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

negative
No, this has nothing to do with the sitcom "Seinfeld" or its eccentric and hilarious character Cosmo Kramer. In reality, "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a fine drama movie, without a doubt one of the finest of its kind and one of the greatest movies ever. I'm glad that it won more Oscars than "Apocalypse Now" because it really deserved such glory.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" is an excellent film, so well made and so perfectly balanced that I wouldn't change anything about it in any way. There is nothing wrong with the film. It's film-making of the highest quality. And it stands the test of time, too. Not only it doesn't look any dated, but also its cultural impact is long-lasting and its realistic story remains just as significant as it was when it came out in 1979. A timeless classic. They don't make movies like this today.

This movie is dramatic, realistic, simple but brilliant, intense, powerful, sweet and even tragic and depressing sometimes. Yet, it has fine humor as well. It has no special effects, but who cares? This is not the movie or place to discuss such thing. For a movie like this, such thing would be pointless and absolutely unnecessary.

The story is very interesting. The actors's chemistry is just perfect. All of the actors are great, but the 3 main ones are the very best. Dustin Hoffman, a brilliant actor, has his greatest performance ever here as the lovable but distant workaholic Ted Kramer. Meryl Streep is great as Ted's wife, Joanna. And cute little Justin Henry is terrific as the loving but sometimes stubborn Billy, son of Ted and Joanna.

The soundtrack is all instrumental and wonderful. The opening song (by the guitarist Frederic Hand) is brilliant. The rest of the soundtrack is mostly Antonio Vivaldi's classical music and is simply dazzling.

This motion picture has also an incredible development of the characters. See the character Ted Kramer: a workaholic who becomes an amazing father after being left with no choice but to take care of his son, trying to adjust these new responsibilities with his job after being left by his wife Joanna. With this, Ted learns about the most beautiful things in life, but also realizes how though life is, with the problems in his job and the return of Joanna, who wants the custody of their son. But even Joanna changes for better and the ending is an unexpected surprise when one sees this for the first time.

This movie has also some though things, such as courtroom scenes where both Ted and Joanna face brutal character assassinations unleashed by the lawyers. Another though thing to see is when poor Billy falls off a jungle gym with his toy (a plane) and gets seriously injured on his face. But then again, the scene is very well made and what comes next is very intense: his father runs quickly and crosses numerous blocks, ignoring the traffic to take his son to the hospital.

Overall, this is a movie which is a good lesson of life.

This should definitely be on Top 250.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'. 

Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.

There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.

It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits. 

That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.

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

negative
Subject matter: Worthwhile Acting: Fair (some of it) Plot: Ridiculous 

Details: Sound goes from screechingly high to nearly inaudible; music is not altogether awful (but mostly is); dialog and characterization are laughable; the main character's process of discovery is blindingly obvious to everyone but himself (and the writer, apparently); animal scenes are just plain stupid (singing "Moon River" in an off-key, forgotten-lyrics, silly duet to a "herd" of wild boars for hours, as one example). Finally, the "wet t-shirt" contest is so over-the-top silly that it has to be seen to be disbelieved. (Hint: The 'girl' who wins is not a ... well, I'm not giving that away.)

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

negative
This show is verging on brilliant. It's a modern day Married...with Children. The scripts are witty, as they are sprinkled with clever sarcasm. They are also realistic, dealing with issues that face many parents of teenagers today. As well as the on going burden that you might not be the worlds greatest parent, and how is the best way to deal with this? However, at the same time, it manages to remain light hearted and fun. Which, with all the drama and action on television these days, is a very pleasant and welcome change. It is something you can sit down in front of for 30 minutes and relax, laugh and relate to. It isn't the world's most hilarious comedy. yet will make you laugh at least a handful of times an episode. Michael Rapaport is brilliant in the lead as Dave. He fills the big shoes that the heavily sarcastic script requires and then some. He and Anita Barone (Vikki) have fantastic chemistry and bounce off one another very well. This show has a strong future if it is marketed at the correct target audience, and put in the right time slot. Also, if Fox release it on DVD, the following will be stronger and larger. (As is a classic example with Scrubs.)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
(r#88) Brilliant, very entertaining show with spectacular effects. Any fan of these prehistoric reptiles has to see this. The CGI blends in extremely well with the environment and it's just plain fun to watch these giants walk about their daily business as casually as on Discovery Channel. This show was a stroke of genius and it blows its followers "Walking with beasts" and "The future is wild" out of the water.

The greatest episode was definitely the last, where we got to watch the final days of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the meteor strike that became their doom. This stuff is almost too awesome for television. How about a theatrical release? I would pay anything to see these dinos in the cinema.

If you're in the mood for a show that manages to be spectacular, engaging and educational at the same time, this is for you. Dinosaurs have never been cooler.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hello all you lovely Dirty Dancing fans!!!! I came across this message board when i was bored one day and think it's cool. I absolutely love DD! I first saw it at my friends house when I was 13 (now I'm 17) and got hooked!! I saw it there at least 10 more times and soon after, I bought the DVD for myself. At this stage, I have memorized most of the script and can recite it whenever anyone asks me about it. ''I carried a watermelon?!'' It's gotten so bad that I bought the soundtrack and recorded Micky and Sylvia's song, and now it's the ringtone on my phone!! Most of my friends think it's a crap movie, but I don't care what they think of it, I know it's brill! I was reading the comments earlier and I have a few questions for you lot - 1. Why are you asking trivial questions like what ages Lisa and Baby are? I don't think it matters that much. They are teenagers in the 60's, isn't that enough? 2. Where did ye get this special edition that you're all talking about? It sounds VERY interesting... Please reply to this. I'd like to see other fans opinions... Cheers! charliesangel415 xxx

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was lucky enough to grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.

Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)

PS: Had to change my summery from "WTF?!" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned. 

My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.

If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.

The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.
This movie is kind of good. It seem that they used the Tyrannosaurus Rex like a blown up balloon, just like Godzilla, just maybe back in those 60-70's days, scientist haven't got enough info. on all sorts of dinosaurs. Back in those time scientist still making dinosaur, so I guess this movie was base on a Tyrannosaurus Rex movements back in the 60-70's. There even a part where a giant rock, fired by someone at the Tyrannosaurus Rex, it damage the Tyrannosaurus Rex and it was knock out for a little while. At the end, the Tyrannosaurus Rex went back to search for food. There is something wrong in the movie as well, like a rifle, how can one rifle kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex, when it could be 1,000-5,000 stronger than we are. If this film going to make a remake, I suggest make it more good and excited, because watching a old movie seems like to have a remake of it, if lucky.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like "Raja Babu", "Coolie No.1", "Hero No. 1"...

The main theme for this movie is taken from "The Hitch" with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.

Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie "Hitch" which is a lot better.
After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...

1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.

2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.

3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.

4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.

I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.

Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!

I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.

Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.

What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"

Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:

"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie".
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a movie about a black man buying a airline company and turning the company into a African-centric over the top airliner. They even portray the owner as not only being in control of the airline, but also controlling part of the air terminal at the airport. One day this guy wins $100 million dollars a the next time you see him, he is walking all over the airport acting like the owner of the airport. Everyone calls this movie a parody, but nothing about this movie shouts parody! This movie is a flop and will forever be in the $4.95 bin at Wal-Mart.

I can't even come to terms to why MGM would waste 16 million dollars on this movie. This movie doesn't even warrant straight-to-video status. The writers (one black and one white) should be blackballed from Hollywood forever. Not only do they over-stereotype blacks, they portray them as ignorant human beings. I would be ashamed of going to a movie that constantly humiliates me. Don't waste your time at the video store, wal-mart, pay-per-view, or on a Sunday afternoon when the movie is shown on TBS.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Note: After writing this review I see that this listing is indeed about the TV series and not the original film. My mistake. I thought IMDb for a database for movies, not TV shows. But since most people will look up this film under BAGDAD CAFE and not OUT OF ROSENHEIM, which, strangely, is the name this film is listed under on IMDb, I'll leave this comment here.

Maybe I missed something, but when I read that other review it seemed to be entirely a review of the CBS series -- which must have been loosely based on this film. I did not see the TV series and I might like it or not, but one thing I am sure is that it is very different than this film. This film is NOT like a TV show at all and Whoopie Goldberg is not in it or any other famous Hollywood stars (other than Jack Palance, who was very charming in his role).

This is a terribly sweet movie that totally thinks "outside the box." It is not at all like a Hollywood formula movie, which is probably why the (what's a nice word for idiots?) who decide to market movies or not decided not to market this one.

First of all, this movie captured my heart and imagination from the get-go. From the music (which is just part of the time so you can't really call it a musical) to the cinematography to the really cool story.

A German or Bavarian woman (very pretty and quite plump) gets in an argument with the other German or Bavarian man with whom she is traveling through the California desert with and parts ways with him --he taking off in the car and she left to fend for herself on a deserted and desert-like highway out in the middle of nowhere.

She finds the small and dilapidated but charming Bagdad Cafe, in Bagdad, California and checks in. The rest of the story is magic. I don't want to try to describe this film because I want you to enjoy every surprise.

Warning: If you are a racist or have something against big women you will not like this movie, as the main romantic lead is a big woman and characters of brown and red skin have large roles and are included as "part of the mix" without any racism involved.

I gave this film a 10 for orginality, entertainment and sheer delightfulness.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I thought that the love letter was a pretty good movie. There were certain things that could have made it better. But Kate Capshaw is absolutely beautiful, and she showed it in this movie. I wish that there could have been a few more revealing scenes of her, but it was still a very good movie. It was very fun to watch!
Determine the sentiment:

In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands it. Jules Dassin is the master.

I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical Hollywood of its day.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has not has the pleasure of seeing it.

I cannot give it enough stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The episode begins with scenes of a dead woman bather washed up on the shore, a forlorn Jim strolling along the beach lost in reverie and a night ride home that ends in murder and mystery. Yep,this is an atmospheric little number with a super twist at the end. Jim does well to unravel what is, a priori, an inexplicable case of a woman going missing 20 seconds after she enters her home. To be sure, the eventual explanation is a little far-fetched. Why, for example, go to the lengths of substituting a woman midway thru a car journey when simply rubbing her AND her companions out would've been as easy and left less of a trail. However, these niggles aside, it's a memorable TRF episode full of invention, even if YET AGAIN Jim gets put in the frame by an ever suspicious Police Dept. I mean to say, have the ungrateful so-and-so's ever sat down and counted just how many of THEIR files have been solved by dear ol' Jimbo?
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.

I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.

This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to "make people think". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.

It made me think alright. It made me think, "I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back."

I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.

I am not one of them.
This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Yet another TV show becomes a movie. Steve {The Office} Carell plays dimwitted agent Maxwell Smart in a movie that's so bad, it makes the worst movie you ever saw become the second worst movie you ever saw. The seventh rate story- if you can call it that has a megalomaniac trying to take over the world. It is so unfunny, it is absolutely pathetic. About the only thing Anne Hathaway does as agent 99 is look good-she seems incapable of doing anything else. Bill Murray has the fine sense to limit his screen time to about 90 seconds, and a few faces from the TV series turn up in very small roles. Movie is supposed to be part thriller and part action film. It is neither. Even though I really was not a fan of the TV series, at least it was light years ahead of this piece of -hit. All this does is drag it through the dirt and cheapen whatever good memories we had of it. Thank God Don Adams is not here to see it. Keep it up Hollywood! Keep making crappy movies like this and keep sendin 'em to the multiplexes on a weekly basis. No wonder the film industry is going down the tubes. This movie is so rotten, it's NOT even good for laughs. If this movie were a newspaper, it could be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie. A root canal is more enjoyable than this.! Rating- zero minus five stars. Unless you are a Masochist, STAY AWAY. Better still, do what the title says- Get Smart and save your nine bucks. You will be able to buy about 2 gallons of gas with it. Put it in your car and be thankful you did not waste it going to a multiplex to see this bomb!

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.

Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.

The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.

A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.

Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I´m from germany so please excuse my style of writing. As I´ve seen Chucky 4 for the first time I was a bit surprised, I knew Chucky as a usual 80s scarymovie, but Bride of Chucky was very different from the old ones. First there is the artwork of the very good director Ronny Yu, who we still have in mind from A chinese ghost story. His visual style is in a wired kinda way comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Also the voices of Chucky an Tiff are very impressive. I´ve also liked the screenplay very much, especially the scene in which Tiff throws the Champaignbottle in the ceilingmirror.

I give it a 9.0 vote for funny, gory and progressive entertainment. If you have any comments on my opinion, just send me an E-Mail. MFG Schawez
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot could have been made to work, had the movie been written better. The acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I was very slow and made me want to leave/turn off the movie several times. I watched the entire movie in the hopes that the ending would make it worthwhile but it didn't. this movie I think should be rated in the negative numbers. (In my humble opinion)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the "Haka" which is preformed by the New Zealand "All Blacks" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.

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

negative
This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself "this is going to be really good". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
You know, I really hate IMDb's censor system, since my entire review is almost gone if you take out the cursing. But here we go. Editing time!

Holy moley is this bad. I thought it might be a cool little movie, judging by the plot summary, since yknow I've blindly rented such gems as Frailty and American Nightmare before. But this is just abominal. It's about a killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe's works as reference for his murderous exploits, and the story of a detective who has to stop him. Can't these blithering hacks make a good movie without defiling the grave of a great horror writer? I mean, the kills in here are completely devoid of thought or originality, and the references to Poe are hokey and fake, without enough thought put into them. They're shallow, and they put Poe's work to shame. Full of holes, with awful sequencing. The acting is bad too, reminding me of the abortion that was known in some third world countries as "Fear X", what with all the pausing and un-emotional lines.

I realize this is an indie movie, but that's no excuse. I've seen high school kids act better then these morons, and I myself could've come up with better kill scenes and a better plot, given ample time.

This has no reason to exist. Avoid at all costs.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative