cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: After reading the terrible reviews of this movie, including comments said to be quoted from Colin, I almost didn't bother to add this film to my Firth Film collection, however being the Firth Fan which I am, intrigue got the better of me!

To my surprise I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had suspense,drama and intrigue and V.sexy Colin scene's. The plot kept me guessing right until the end credits and I felt that once one got past Jennifer Rubens opening scene's that the actress played her role convincingly. Colin was as brilliant as ever and its great to see him play a character from the 'Dark side', a 'chill went down my spine' and after watching this I can't wait to see Colins recent film 'Trauma'soon to be out on DVD. 

OK, perhaps it 'wasn't a film that was 'in your face' so to speak and one couldn't 'go to sleep on the plot',especially towards the end as there was a lot going on, but that was what I liked about it, the acting was subtle, thankfully not overdone (like many suspense thrillers), this made the film all the more chilling to watch. One just couldn't second guess what Colins character (Ross Talbert), or for that matter Jennifer Rubens character(Jamie Harris) was going to do next, and there were quite a few surprises in store, I sat on the edge of my seat throughout, with a cushion handy!!

Personally I am very glad that I watched 'Playmaker' and I shall certainly rewind and view again. I think that any Firth Fan would benefit from watching this film, if they didn't like the plot then just watch Colin ;-))
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: 1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. "Rusty" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When I saw LAUREN BACALL do CACTUS FLOWER on Broadway, I never dreamed that one day I would see an actress like INGRID BERGMAN playing the Bacall role on screen. But here Ingrid really lets her hair down for some good comedy moments as the dental nurse pretending to be WALTER MATTHAU's wife so he can go on with the fib he's told GOLDIE HAWN.

It's a story played for laughs from beginning to end, good-humored stuff that never runs out of dry humor and wit throughout its running time. There are plenty of one-liners or gags that are way above the usual situation comedy stuff one hears on TV--the lines ring true because they blend so well with the characters and their motives.

As the daffy girl who contemplates (in the beginning) committing suicide over her unhappy affair with Matthau, GOLDIE HAWN (fresh from her days as a star on TV's "Laugh In") does a dumb blonde role to perfection. Easy to see why she won that Supporting Actress Oscar.

Ingrid is surprisingly fetching in a rare comedy role, although there are times when she seems just a bit too matronly for the part. At any rate, she's a surprising choice to play the nurse who puts on a freeze act at the office but is considerably warmer off duty.

As Goldie's next door neighbor, Igor, Rick Lenz acquits himself admirably, and makes a suitable match for her in that final scene.

Matthau plays the kind of character that became his stock in trade in all those Neil Simon roles he had--a lovable cad who gets caught up in his own messes when he tells lie after lie.

It's the kind of rib-tickling comedy that'll have you laughing out loud at some of the amusing lines that Abe Burrows and I.A.L. Diamond have managed to scrap together, based on a French farce.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Don't watch this film while, or soon after, eating.

Having said that, Begotten will stick with you for the rest of your life, like it or not. Based on the nihilistic philosophy that life is nothing more than man spasming above ground (to paraphrase the title sequence/introduction), this will more than likely contain the most intense and grisly imagery you'll ever see in a film.

There is no dialogue, only image after image describing the cycle of life. The film's combination of stark black and white photography compounded with some truly creepy background sounds work to drive home the maker's message.

The movie begins with God (portrayed as a bandaged and obviously insane man) slicing open his torso with a straight razor and subsequently dying in his own filth. After his death, Mother Nature emerges from his corpse to impregnate herself with his blood and semen and gives birth to Man, represented by a maggot of a human convulsing on the earth.

The landscape is a barren waste, populated by hulking shrouded humanoids who eventually happen upon Mother Nature and Man. After a slew of violent scenes depicting the rape of Nature and destruction of Man, these humanoids proceed to pound the remains of the corpses back into the ground, and the cycle of life begins anew.

I actually rented this from Blockbuster one night, based on the cover art and hype content, but this is definitely not a Blockbuster-type film. Don't expect narrative, dialogue or any pulled punches. This is intense imagery based on a dark subject.

I give this movie some high marks for the filmwork and audio, but I don't think I'll be watching it too often, if again. I like my movies dark and unique, but this one is exponentially more than I expected.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Ocean's 12

'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.' (Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard)

This adage certainly rings true in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from Rusty's (Pitt's) past. 

On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence. Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of character development? Plenty. 

Ocean and his band of merry men are charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends, filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent.

The stars of this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean) and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film doesn't work.

Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a mainstream film like this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I am astounded that so many people find this film even close to good. Let me make it clear that I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and went out of my way to own as many of his films on video as I could but this one I felt was so below par not only for Hitch's films - aw heck, I'm being far too nice here. This pictured really sucked. I don't care that Hitch did a favor for the very talented Carole Lombard, but I have seen 50s sitcoms with more cleverness and style than this boring turkey. Chemistry between Lombard and Robert Montgomery? Listne I like mashed potatoes and ice cream but I wouldn't want to taste them together. I have seen better chemistry in chemical spills on th highway than here.

If you really love Hitchcock, avoid this film and see any one of his better ones. For crying out loud, the bits Hitch did on the old TV show were funnier than anything this film fails miserably to deliver.
While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock

I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.

All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movies shook my will to live why this abomination isn't the bottom 100 list i don't know.

My life was saved by the healing power of danny trejo.

Worst movie ever, i dare you watch. It's like a 90 minute collect calling commercial, only much much worse. i rather watch the blue screen it's that bad really
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
There is a reason Chairman of the Board got a 2, (which is too high) this movie flat out is one of the worse movies of all time and I seen my share of rotten films. Chairman of the Board stars two of the most annoying actors/people today, Carrot Top and Courtney Thorne Smith. Carrot Top just isn't funny anymore and wasn't in this piece of trash. Courtney Thorne Smith isn't any better, just watch "According To Jim" and you will see a prime example of what I am talking about. Chairman of the Board got a 1 from me, because that is low as you can go it is that bad. I am a little shocked that this piece of junk isn't on the IMdb bottom 100 somewhere, I would put this in the top 5 on that list, but its slowly working its way there.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I think this movie actually has a lot of nice things to say about a lot of people (Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel), and it shows that Letterman and Leno actually liked and respected each other a lot. Treat Williams as the half-Kung Fu Master, half-Godfather-like Mike Ovitz is terrific.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "Boogie Nights" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
No, it's just a cheap 1940s serial using the Cap's good name. If you are a fan of the comic book, you will be greatly disappointed. They have radically changed the character. No shield, no Bucky, no fighting the Nazis, no wings on the side of his mask and most importantly: Captain America is now a District Attorney and no longer a GI.

Dick Purcell as Captain America? Don't look too closely when he changes into his costume. It is pretty obvious that he was not in the best physical shape when he made this serial(can you say flabby?). It is also VERY obvious that a stunt man is performing most of the action here. Almost every chapter has an obligatory fist fight that is shot and performed in exactly the same way. The villain is rather bland and although he uses an alias (The Scarab), he doesn't wear a disguise of any kind. The story is repetitive and very simple. The effects are laughable and the action is average. On the plus side we have sexy Lorna Gray as the D.A.'s assistant and the good Captain gets to ride on a cool looking motorcycle in one early chapter. Overall OK but nothing special.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Blade was a thrilling horror masterpiece and it was a brilliant movie with real great action, I cant wait for Blade 2, This is one of Wesley Snipes greatest movies, the acting is great the story line is great everything about this movie is great.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.

I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.

How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?

Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.

After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.
I liked this movie a lot, but the feeling that I most came away with was the memory of how much I´d enjoyed the novel. The film features two of the best actresses working today--Jessica Lange, who is great here, and the divine Jennifer Jason Leigh, who does the best she can with the thinly-drawn character she is given--as well as a surprisingly excellent Michelle Pfeiffer and a steady Jason Robards. The adaptation is basically faithful to the book, at least as faithful as it can be in an hour and forty minutes. The film doesn´t really dazzle, except for certain scenes between Lange and Pfeiffer, but it does a thoroughly competent job of visualizing this wonderfully tragic story. As far as movies adapted from novels go, this was definitely among the better ones. If nothing else, it has sent me back to my bookshelves to rediscover favorite passages from Jane Smiley´s excellent novel, and back to King Lear to brush up on the minor characters in order to see just how deep the parallels go. Worth your time as a film, definitely, and hopefully enough to make you remember that reading great literature is a joy as well.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.

The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
I'm 35. Bruce was THE man in Evil Dead, and I still love to watch ED1 and ED2. It was cool also to see him as The King two or three years ago in Bubba Ho Tep in which he showed versatility and great acting talent. But this Screaming Brain adventure is certainly not for Bruce's early fans. Either I'm getting too old for this sh17, or I'm just not part of Bruce's target audience anymore. I'm positive kids age 9 to 13 will love this film. But this over extended matinée sci-fi comedy contains about 5 minutes total of interesting moments, and the rest is cheap kids slapstick humor. Campbell better talk seriously with Sam Raimi and get their brains screaming together for a last Evil Dead reunion picture to get back my interest. At least there would be a good director behind the camera... Sorry Bruce, this just doesn't cut it for me. Take care.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.

Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Surface, from the day its teaser first showed in the summer of 2005, was a tossup. On one hand, it seemed so high-concept and plot driven that to the passerby it felt like it would work out better as a motion picture (or several). Plus, it felt like it was NBC's attempt at a "Lost-killer". On the other hand, one may have realized that the story was too expansive to tell in a movie or two, and fans of Lost seemed intrigued.

So, after one (and possibly only) season on NBC, the show is on an indefinite hiatus that could either put it in the vault, on Sci-fi, or filling a gap in NBC's lineup in the summer or fall of 2007 or beyond. Its ratings were some of the better on the network (which isn't saying much), but the show has been taken off the air with no real official announcement of its future.

So, is it worthwhile? Yes.

Surface follows a continuing story format, driven by plot with next to no filler episodes. Almost everything that happens on the show is important to the plot, much like a motion picture. No filler episodes, which put a pain in your side when you missed an episode. Yet, the show's double-edge helped made up for that; Big things seem to happen every episode, but since it feels like a movie you end every episode feeling like little happened and you're left wanting more! That trait of the show, though shows how great it is. The cast is solid; the three main leads, including the beautiful Lake Bell as Laura Daughtery, put in a solid performance every episode, each driven by their own reasons for finding/studying the creatures. The supporting cast, including Ian Anthony Dale and the brief performance by Rade Serbedzija fill out the cast well. The story is slow to start (my one regret; it doesn't really pick up until a 3-4 episodes in to the short 15-episode season), but the latter half of the season makes up for it. The visual effects are stunning (one's jaw will drop when you see an overhead view of one of the creatures 'attack' a ship), as well.

Many of the show's problems can be remedied by purchasing the complete first season and not having to wait a week (or three) to watch the next episode.

In short, if you've missed the first season and you're curious, go back and watch it. It's no Twin Peaks in terms of quirkiness, but the high-concept nature of it puts in in league with that, Lost, and other similar shows, with a flair for action and adventure. Enjoy it.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Chi-hwa-seong (Painted Fire) recounts the life of Korean painter Jang Seong-ub amidst the changing political landscape of late 19th century Korea.

However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.

Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.

Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.

The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.

The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.

I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and/or censorship I cannot comment.

Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over.
Fast Times it ain't. But check this movie out, it has a heart. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy. It's loaded with a slew of just-beginning stars. Sherilyn Fenn has her first on-screen credited cameo. Chris Penn, Lea Thompson, Eric Stotz, Jenny Wright, Rick Moranis, etc.--they all look so young. Oh and if you look closely the cop's wife is Nancy Wilson from the rock band Heart.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Reading the other comments here at the IMDB, I had very high expectations before seeing 'Angels of the universe'. I wasn't disappointed, and giving the movie an 8, I would say that I can justify that grade.

The movie has some incredible acting, especially by the main-person, Pall. The supporting actors are also doing a very good job like the patients in the mental institution, the parents and the siblings of Pall. The music is also worth mentioning, supporting the movie throughout, giving depth and feeling.

Although the movie is very scandinavian, it doesn't leave out some humour and has a sort of objective authorship about Pall's life. Still, if you want to see a cheesy comedy or something light-weight, this is not for you. It is a story about people with mental problems, about the way they are being dealt with in society - but most of all, a story about Pall.

I recommend this movie to all movie connoisseurs. It is one of the best movies that has ever come out of Iceland, if not out of Scandinavia.
Determine the sentiment:

When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.

One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!

The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies, "Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever.

Good acting, good gags, great show!

7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First of all, I must say that I love this film.

It was the first film that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the direction was good !

Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore.

The roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance.

There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw.

I just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5/10

Oh yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience. A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for example.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This certainly isn't a comedy - I don't know what it was marketed that way. As a serious movie, it lacks any sort of substance. Unless you're fresh out of Sunday school or needing your Noah fix, you'll find yourself bored to tears.

The supporting cast took away from what little of the movie was left. Lauren Graham plays an empty housewife with no real depth. His children don't really add anything to the movie. They seem to be around solely to brood about their absent father at the beginning. Jonah Hill plays a creepy internet addict that doesn't come off as humorous. 

I found the original to be a decent movie. Disappointed that this one didn't really go anywhere.
What's an example of a movie review?

I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.

What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.

I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.

Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.
This one's as cheesy as they come  the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue  then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird  first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory  is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)! 

Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956)  with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars  namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans  consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).

Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax  which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes  and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.

Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...



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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.
This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch "Mr. Imperium", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.

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

negative