cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations. 

Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.

Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, "The Beguiled" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own "Play Misty for Me" and "Tightrope". 

The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.

Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from "Invation of the Body Snatchers" to "Dirty Harry". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty "realism" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.

"The Beguiled", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, "The Beguiled" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.

8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed "Black Narcissus", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, "The Beguiled" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I am sligthly biased because I appear in this film but i loved it and I am only in about seven dispersed minutes and am not nearly the most interesting part of it. The film is an honest and intriguing account of a noble independent group of filmmakers trying to make a lovable movie. It is also an account of bloated expectations and fallen heros The interviews are well patched together in the editing. The different people are all interesting and there is never really too much of one person. Also, the interviews are shot in a pretty interesting fashion keeping the film visually satisfying. Definitely a worthwhile film. I hope it gets around.

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

positive
Sure, the film is full of black militant stereotypes and much of the jargon of the time. In that sense, the movie has indeed dated. But as a satirical look at America's number one parasitical industry, advertising, it's still on target. But just as important is the counter- message, namely the effect of big bucks on those who would make the industry more socially responsibleno promoting war toys, alcohol, etc. Thus, the movie's also about the allures of capitalism. Note, for example, how Putney's garb suddenly changes to resemble Third-World revolutionary Fidel's, just before he pulls out of the firm. For a moment, it looks like Swope's mini-revolution has succeeded among his staff, and he's moving on, maybe to spread the movement. But then, the former militants succumb to the allure of big bucks and he departs shaking his head, perhaps to hijack a plane to Cuba. Downey's final word, however, is an ironical one as the Arab (I believe) burns down the money tower leaving the metaphorical structure of (advertising, capitalism) a smoking ruin. To me, this looks like change can only succeed as a cleansing act of destruction and not as a process of reforma message consistent with the radical spirit of the time.

Whatever the subtext, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially with the commercials that play as well now as they did then. Those who compare the anarchic style to that of the Marx Bros. make a good point. The throw-away lines fly thick and fast along with the outrageous set-ups. Forty years later, it's still a hard movie to get a consistent handle on. Despite the crudities, however, the film remains a work of daring originality with some genuinely telling moments.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.

Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.

The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.

I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.

LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Initially I was put off renting this movie due to the jacket art for the DVD. In fact, this held true with friends of mine who didn't rent it due to the art and the mental image(s) it conjured of being a movie that held little or no interest to me (or to my friends). But, I rented and watched it and was truly amazed.

I agree with another user's comments that this movie is not for everyone due to the blatant sexual inferences, so it is definitely not something I'd want young children to watch (and doubt seriously if they would understand it anyway).

I enjoy movies like this whereby the character's personalities and who they are are genuinely defined in a no-nonsense, direct way with no teasers to indicate they will turn out bad. The acting done ... was it acting? Ricci and Jackson performed so well, I was drawn into this movie not even realizing they were acting. Same thing with the story ... may seem far-fetched somewhat, but it was done so very, very well. It reminded me of another movie with Mel Gibson, Tim, where each character had limitations, whether mental or circumstantial, so were well-defined.

I found much depth in this movie with the character's involved, so feel that everyone involved (from the cameramen to the actors) should be commended on a perfect fit/result. After viewing this movie, I had talked to a couple of friends who had a negative approach to watching it like I did, so after hearing my comments, they rented and watched it. They, too, were quite surprised at how good it was. It is too bad that the art on the jacket was done the way it was since it is a turn off. I can see now how the art applies, but I'd not heard of this movie before, and the art was my first impression ... art sells or destroys DVD sales/rentals.

These characters had more depth to them and good timing was allotted to give an audience like me time to absorb the "feel" for each. I felt I could trust the movie to flow well, and it did. So, with the jacket art aside, I would recommend watching this movie.
I'm new to Argento's work, and if this and Suspiria are any indication, then Argento is much more a filmmaker of experience than story. In his films, characters are placed in grueling and mesmerizing horror contexts that literally saturate the logic of the world around them. The camera literally flows gracefully through sets as the characters run, stumble, and choke their way to an eventual horrifying conclusion. It worked, REALLY well, in Suspiria. For some reason it didn't work here.

The problem I see with this movie is that even though the protagonist "gets help" by way of contacting the police and asking for help from her friends, it still feels as if she refuses to "get help" in terms of actually trying to find a solution to her problem. The entrapment in this film is that she's trapped in the killer's little game, one that she could easily get out of by... not setting herself up so easily? In a weird way it seems like the character wants the torture the killer gives her, which in a way is the point and could have worked except that the whole psychology of it is thrown about mostly due to whatever Argento feels like doing.

As a loving homage to "The Phantom of the Opera", it's certainly an interesting and unique take. For all his worth, Argento delights in operatic movements as well, which well highlights the action. It just doesn't make much sense, especially as it delves further into a completely useless ending (yes, I know it's a reference to Harris' novel "Red Dragon". No, it didn't work). Why the character should go from one horrifying experience of entrapment to a willing one with the director is beyond me. It felt almost self-serving on Argento's part.

Overall, a fun experience, and between this and Suspiria I'm more than willing to follow up on more Argento productions. But this is not a movie I'd want to return to or remember.

--PolarisDiB
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I always loved French movies because I think they are filled with much more emotion and sense than the Americans. This film is a gem.

Starting with the wedding which is so funny that you just want to join them and in the end where the little family kids tell us who is with who which is extremly funny. Catherine Deneuve is simply hot and so good that it is absolutely possible that a young man can fall in love with her, and Vincen Lindon is perfect for that role. The best scene (except the wedding party) is in the family reunion where Antoine has got mad and yells his feelings to Lea in front of the family. It is such a shame that I could buy this film only from the French and not from the English (so I have to learn in French to enjoy watching it)!!

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

positive
So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.

To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.

Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I saw this movie at the Philadelphia Film Festival today and enjoyed it overall. It is an interesting and adept analysis of the all-too-common revelation that our parent's marriage was more flawed and difficult than we originally imagined. In addition, this movie is an excellent example of process of discovering truths about our parent's lives after their death and the issues associated with that. However, i found the sound quality (recording and editing) to be relatively poor and annoying. *** It may very well have been related to the specific theater and projection conditions *** i am not a film maker / student or anything and claim no real understanding of the sound production process, but as a consumer, i found the audio portion of the movie distracting. Specifically, i heard very unpleasant lip smacking noises through out (especially one long interview with the younger sister) the film, and often the background noise level was higher in volume than people's voices (for example the scene when a small group was sorting through the mothers papers). has anyone else seen this movie, noticed anything about the sound... thanks
Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
ALEXANDER NEVSKY is nothing short of a grand film on a grand scale. The film opens a window to a world and culture most Americans will never become acquainted with. And much has been said and written regarding the film's thinly veiled patriotism in the face of imminent war with the German Nazis.

By US standards the acting is a bit stilted. The screenplay is short on words and big on visuals and action. And while the action can become tiresome, the visuals are often stunning. Direction is incredible.

On another note, fans of Ralph Bakshi animation might notice that he stole a lot of his visuals for WIZARDS directly from a copy of ALEXANDER NEVSKY.

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

positive
Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop.

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

positive
The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.

88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!

I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.

one-and-a-half out of 10
Write a positive movie review.

This 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.

If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.

Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond.
I absolutely hated this movie! I was 9 when I saw it. It is the only movie I have ever walked out of in the theater. My mom, dad, and I all looked at each other during the movie and knew we were wasting our time. This movie stole approximately 45 minutes of my life. Everything about it was ridiculous. The entire premise was too warped. Being 9, I was always easily entertained. This movie proved that I couldn't subject myself to anything and still be entertained.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Obviously influenced by the success of Pal's "Destination Moon" and Lippert's "Rocketship X-M" this one just doesn't make the cut. Limited special effects, a thin story line result in a production that even the half-decent cast can't save. Just no believability here. No one seems surprised to encounter Martians, much like earthlings, etc. etc. Pass on it!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

A antique shop-owner in NYC, played by Joanne Whalley(Valerie Alston)gets put on a US District Court jury, on a trial of a known Mafioso Armand Asante(Rusty Pirone), and most of this very slow-paced film revolves around attempts of Pirone attempting to get Whalley to acquit him of murder, by threatening to kill her son, and herself. Much action ensues, involving gruesome mob-rub outs, interspread with Willam Hurt as the go-between. Much of this silly, disjointed mess surrounds Hurt and Asante's obsession with Whalley, courtroom scenes that we've all seen time and again, and an ending that is unbelievable. 3/10 is probably going easy on this waste of time.
Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...

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

negative
Venice, in 1596.Jews are separated from the good Christians.Bassanio, a young but poor Venetian loves the fair Portia, who is a wealthy heiress.So he approaches his friend, a merchant called Antonio for three thousand ducats to travel to Belmont and propose Portia.All of Antonio's ships and merchandise are busy at sea, so he turns to the moneylender Shylock, the one of Jewish faith.Shylock does not like Antonio, for he spat on his face.He offers Antonio a three-month loan at no interest, but if he will not pay the money in that time, he will own a pound of his flesh.Also, Shylock's daughter Jessica elopes with the Christian Lorenzo.The Merchant of Venice is based on William Shakespeare's play that's believed to have written between 1596 and 1598.I read the play last summer and now I've seen the movie, made in 2004 by Michael Radford.I liked the play, and I don't quite agree with the accusations of it being anti-Semitic.The Jewish character does not appear as an inhuman monster, even though he's ready to cut a piece of Antonio's flesh.There's a lot of depth in his character, which all comes out in his speech where he asks "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" and so forth.There is much more human in Shylock's character than in one of Antonio's, who spits on the good Jew.Al Pacino is unbeatable as Shylock.He gives such a strong performance.Jeremy Irons is also terrific as Antonio.Lynn Collins is most beautiful and brilliant in the role of Portia.Zuleikha Robinson does great job as Jessica, and Charlie Cox as Lorenzo is also very good.Kris Marshall plays Gratiano, and he does a good job.In the role of Nerissa we see Heather Goldenhersh.Mackenzie Crook plays Launcelot Gobbo.As in Shakespeare plays usually, also this one contains most brilliant dialogue.The movie paints a fantastic portray of the era.It deals with some great issues, in a Shakespearian way.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The scariest thing about this horror movie is that the end alludes to a sequel. 'The Cave' is really a disappointing action movie. A team of cave and undersea researchers go to Romania (one of these inexpensive places to make a movie, for now at least) and following a destroyed church enter in a cave that proves to be a realm of underground monsters. Or are they daemons? The movie never decides if it wants to be action, science fiction, or horror, it is a mix of all without salt or fun, and acted in a wooden manner. The best thing about the movie is the cinematography, but even the dark landscape of the cave becomes soon boring, because the film lacks pace and the characters are simply not interesting. Waste of time.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I just cannot emphasize enough what a lovely movie this is. Just

the memory of this movie right now enchants me. If you want to

see a sweeping epic of a movie, with wonderful actors in vivid

scenery, with great dialogue, reminding you of what early America

could have been like [what the world could have been like back

then]...well...I highly recommend this movie. Especially during a

time of war and conflict in Iraq...when our American image is not at

all what it used to be...this movie takes you back to a time when we

were just starting out. When being an American meant really

picking yourself up by your bootstraps and getting going. When

the world was such an untamed and unknown place. Well, this

movie has that...and more. Enjoy.
A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clichés ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.

The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it.

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

negative
A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.

I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.

The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This game is from a genre of games that tried to capitalize off of the whole Myst-inspired trend--walk around, talk to people, solve puzzles. The puzzles themselves are absolutely horrible, but I'll stick to the acting itself, which is only slightly better. If you're looking for a convincing performance from any one character, you won't find it here, but this game is worth buying if only to witness the truly hilarious performance of Christopher Walken. His acting is so horrible in this game that it seems like he's imitating someone who happens to be impersonating him. He's a caricature of himself.

So buy this game if you're masochistic, a Walken fan, or simply want to hear the F-word a lot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
As a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy "Mystic Knights" show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.

SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.

Recently "Mystic Knights" has taken on too many "Power Rangers" traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie "Willow" or the T.V. series "The Adventures of Sinbad". A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 7/10)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".

Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.

In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Evil Behind You, was created for a specific purpose in mind, to shove the writer/directors personal views on who either gets to walk on water or who gets to dance with the devil. Sadly it would seem that the creators were so focused on making their point that they took it's power away completely by force feeding their point to the viewer.The way its message is presented Almost reminds me of the stories I've heard of the Spanish inquisition! From one real Christian to another, Avoid this like the plague, fear tactics never work when trying to send this kind of message!!

The acting was horrible,the selection of Muslim terrorists was racist and unfair(they're terrorists so they must be Muslims). The premise of this was good, the story provided a great conduit for its message, however it was the execution of these ideas that fell short making it very difficult to even separate the message from the messenger so to speak.

You'd be better off dusting off your old "Ghost" DVD with Mr Swayze to better receive this message. at least that movie didn't try to shove itself down your throat. Or if you like Good Christian movies with a powerful message, try "End of the Spear"
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.

Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call "assistant" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.

Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this "movie" left me stunned in my chair.

It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.

The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.

This is the worst movie ever.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a "so bad" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation. 

It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her "attitude" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia). 

Rating: 3 out of 10

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: But then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Film starts off great in 1872 with a violent, bloody fight between Dracula (Christopher Lee) and van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Dracula is impaled and dissolves to dust--van Helsing also dies. Somebody gathers Dracula's ashes and buries them in the grounds of a church. Cut to 1972--here's where the film falls apart.

We are instantly hit over the head with loud, bad 70s music, HORRIBLE fashions and silly dialogue. When this was made Hammer was losing money and decided to try anything to get a hit. Putting Dracula in the 1970s was NOT a good idea. The fashions, music and dialogue date the movie horribly. We're introduced to a bunch of annoying kids in their 20s who decide to have a Black Mass--"for a giggle". Naturally they have it at the church (now abandoned) and naturally revive Dracula. It's a good thing a descendant of van Helsing is around...but Dracula goes after his niece (Stephanie Beacham) in revenge.

Lee and Cushing are great as always in their roles and whenever they're on screen the movie gets a much-needed shot of energy. The opening and ending battles are the highlights of the film (although the ending is spoiled a lot by playing lousy 70s music). Also the main ringleader of the kids is named Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame)--a truly stupid name that dates back to the 1940s. The film also has scream queen Caroline Munro looking absolutely great. The film is well-directed and pretty well-acted but the plot is stupid, the constant barrage of 70s fashion, dialogue and music gets annoying real quick and I was basically bored silly.

Most Hammer fans agree--this was one of the worst Dracula movies--it's followup (Satantic Rites of Dracula) was THE worst--and the last Hammer Dracula film. This gets a 2--just for Cushing and Lee.
Write a negative movie review.

Franco Nero stars as Cole a ninja who comes to the rescue of his war buddy Frank Landers (Alex Courtney) and his fetching wife (Susan George) to protect them from a mobster (Christopher George) who wants the land. Things get even more complicated when the mobster hires Cole's old nemesis (Sho Kosugi) who is also a ninja. Inept martial arts actioner, while having better production values then most ninja movies, fails to inject any life into the surroundings, or for that matter actionscenes. A poor effort all around.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.

Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent/care/ability/money/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: `Shadow Magic' recaptures the joy and amazement of the first movie audiences. It also shows the power of film in its ability to bring the world a little closer, overcome cultural barriers and to preserve ourselves for generations yet to come. Certainly, anyone who truly loves the art of the motion picture will enjoy this film. It's a great first effort by writer/director Ann Hu, who will hopefully have many films to follow.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.

I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.

All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.

Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.

As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.

It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.

She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.

She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.

Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see "films" and not "movies" and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.

I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.

The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.

And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).

Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly "movie" - one that you might actually enjoy.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative