cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.

In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.

I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.

But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.

So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.

The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.

And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
World War I gets a glossy, sepia-tinted makeover in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's relentlessly whimsical "A Very Long Engagement". Jeunet's trademark style consists of mechanical, almost clockwork-like narrative construction garnished with lavish, chocolate box production values and seasoned with faux-naive humour. It's an approach that worked pretty well with his previous picture, the romantic fantasy "Amelie", thanks in no small part to the inimitable contribution of Audrey Tatou in the title role. Applied to vastly more sombre material, Jeunet's method backfires rather badly.

Tatou crops up again here in a variation on the same sort of sweetly off-beat character as Amelie. She's Mathilde, an orphan who lives quietly with her aunt and uncle in an idyllic rural setting, determined to trace what became of her child sweetheart Manech (Gaspard Ulliel), several years after he went missing in the War. Manech was one of five soldiers court-martialled for self-mutilation in 1917 at 'Bingo Crepuscule', and sent over the top into no-man's-land as a punishment. He's presumed dead by all but Mathilde who cherishes the hope of finding him. The film follows Mathilde's dogged quest to find out what really happened, and as she delves deeper she uncovers a sad, even shocking story of high-ranking corruption and inhumanity. Mathilde must filter the facts from the fictions that arise from various conflicting, overlapping or incomplete accounts of what seem to be Manech's final hours.

All this should be poignant and gripping, but it's more often simply confusing thanks to the visual and verbal clutter with which Jeunet pummels his audience. There's simply too much going on at any one time, including an intrusive narration that adds precisely nothing to our appreciation of the story and characters. Without a moment's respite from informational overload, I felt denied the space to reflect on Mathilde's quest or the room to engage with it on my own terms. Jeunet's unceasingly busy camera spirals and swoops and circles, caressing every surface contour of his exquisitely designed production, but it singularly fails to penetrate to the soul beneath the story's skin. The result is deeply uninvolving, and worse, grotesque. The First World War was a particularly dark hour in human history. Imagine it re-created as one of those picturesque commercials for a well known Belgian lager, and you have the measure of this film.

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

negative
I must say that I wasn't impressed at all, probably because I was expecting much more from this movie. Maybe an accent on religion vs science or on the meaning of life, not just a few lines. So, if you expect something to think about after you see this movie, don't. It's more psychological than philosophical. I vote 4 because of the end, it clears up a bit and because I have a great respect for BBC documentaries. There are a couple of very interesting scenes that actually gave some sense. It was a brilliant idea to add it in a movie related to theory of evolution, too bad that this wasn't the main subject. Ah, I just forgot to say that for more than 1 hour, the movie is quite boring and in a way, cruel.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Meester Sharky, you look so ... normal. You would never get a table in this fancy cocktail restaurant/bistro. I, on the other 'and eat grapes and pate 'ere every day. You like my fur coat with all the fine trimming? My enormous golden rings of gold? Or maybe you like these blonde, 'ow you say?, bombshells, who are all qualified in aerobics and naked petanques, who decorate my long, maroon velvety sofa like so many soft boiled larks on a plate of pan fried foie gras and figs. You like? You can't have! Zey are all mine.

You will never possess 'er as I possessed 'er. Domino was the best, apart from Maman. You do not understand the art of lovemaking. Just look at your inferior moustache. It is almost funny to me, non, to think of that ludicrous protuberance on your silly face, as you snuffle around Domino's love hillock like the piggy seeking the truffle in the forest, the forest heaving and swaying in the hot winds of desire! You lose again Sharky.

When I make love to the women zey know, Sharky, zey know. Zey learn, zey learn until zey become the teacher. Not nano-maths, the arts of love. Domino was the seedling which I watered. I watered her so very often. Everywhere Sharky. Her scented petals, her proud stalk, everywhere. She will wither under your ridiculous hose, like the soufflé removed from the oven five minute too soon.

I must go now Sharky, you bore me so with your disgraceful behaviour. It is you who will be flushed down le pissoir like the smelly thing.

Bon chance!
He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands. 

I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.

Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Anyone who has seen Ali G before, should be well prepared for the full motion picture that is 'Ali G Indahouse' 

Although I prefer Ali G when he is interviewing the rich and famous, his brand of completely off the wall comedy definitely entertains from start to finish on the big screen too.

Ridiculous plot, ridiculous characters and a ridiculous script, that all make this film a riot for fans of Ali G.

If you've seen him and didn't like him then avoid this film like the plague, because it's definitely just more of the same; for everybody else - watch it Aiiii! 7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Peter Strauss, by nature of appearing in mini-series and made-for-TV films, often gets an unfairly high proportion of bad reviews - Usually from casual observers who saw ten minutes of the film, having channel-hopped into it half-way through. Well, I've just read all the other 20 reviews for this film and am delighted to see not a single bad word said about The Jericho Mile - That should be enough to have you blasting out to buy this film!!

Peter Strauss won an Emmy for his role in this film and watching it even once will show you why he deserved it so much.... 

Looking to be objective, I attempted to criticise this film. Instead, I found myself arguing down every one of my possible nit-picks. This is what true, realistic film-making is about. This is not your typical Hollywood sensationalism, where everything is overacted - It's so realistic and true to life that people have thought it's based on a real event!!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word "sexy" every now and then, and Pepe saying "it would suck?" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling "I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from "The Great Muppet Caper," but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE this movie!
During the making of this movie I once caught a statement on television about it. Something like: "Is Killinggänget now taking off Nazism?"

So, my comprehension of this movie, was from the beginning to get a notion of Nazism. When recently seeing this movie in the TV-version I had this filter before me and it wasn't difficult to see this.

Strangely enough I haven't met this way of interpreting the film ever since I first heard it.

These are the things I found in "Four shades of brown". In all four of the stories the lack of empathy leads to disaster:

1. The crematory-worker shows no realistic empathy to the dead animals or to those who had to say goodbye to them. In the crematory-room in dealing with death and fire it's almost like a cheerful game to him. The seriousness of death and fire is not emphasized by the father and his boy accordingly, in ignorance pushes a button that leads to the disaster that injures his father severely.

Possible lesson: The importance of showing the young adequate emotions. When they grow up they need to know what behavior leads to disaster and what emotions lead to good.

2.The magician maneuvers his wife like an invisible puppeteer. Just when she thinks she has begun to cut off the strings to the masters hand, reaching for personality, integrity and joy, he pulls hard and she is back in desolation and despair.

Their son has tried to revolt in creating his own life with perfection and "good" taste in opposite to his parents "bad" taste. The real problem he is carrying within is far from comprehensible to him: His fathers behavior passes on when suffocating his own wife in his spotless environment.

Possible lesson: Oppression breeds bondage.

3.The father who was abused as a child passes on sadism to his children when he cheats them on their inheritance. He robs them of their childhood and in the end even of their inheritance.

Possible lesson: When no love given you cannot give any.

4.The fathers abuse of his daughter creates in her a ruthless revenger with sadistic aggression. Here the ice cold Nazi-sadism becomes very obvious in physical violence. It gives a possible background and a somewhat plausible explanation to the actions of young "scin-head"-nazists behavior when oppressing others. 

Possible lesson? : Can Nazism take birth in a pervert home?

Can the hideous consequence of ignoring empathy in family life, in the long run, be that room is given to sadistic Nazism ?

Very seldom does a movie contains so much. It reveals little by little as I meditate on it. I consider it brilliantly "painted" and the actors are superb. Especially the nice-seeming bloke played by Ulf Brunnberg that turns out to be the worst of all..

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

positive
It was so very long ago (1960), but I have never forgotten this series and often wished it would reappear. So taken with it, I corresponded with Mr. Rathbun, then president of Standard Oil, which sponsored the presentation on PBS. He sent me a photo of the tapestry (actually a charcoal rendering) used behind the credits.

To the opening theme music of Bayco's "Elizabethan Masque," my family and I gathered around our black & white TV to drink in Shakespeare's words as spoken by a group of excellent but relatively unknown players (at least to American audiences at the time).

We were introduced to such actors as Sean Connery, Dame Judi Dench, Tom Fleming, Patrick Garland, Julian Glover and Robert Hardy. I have continued to enjoy their accomplishments ever since. One of the most interesting things was the way in which the actors continued to age in their respective roles as Shakespeare's "King" plays were presented, perhaps for the first time, in chronological order.

I wish I could tell those actors just how much that series meant to me.

If "Age of Kings" could be revived on VHS and/or DVD, it would so please those of us who long to see it again and those who missed it the first time around.

GOOD NEWS! PBS HAS JUST ISSUED A DVD OF "AN AGE OF KINGS"! SEE THEIR JULY 2009 CATALOG, PAGE 19, OR CALL THEM TOLL FREE. I JUST ORDERED MINE!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?

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

negative
On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out 

Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This early film from director Bob Clark ("Porky's", "Black Christmas", "A Christmas Story") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some "comedic" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Back in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Another period piece for Chen Kiage... (can't remember him doing a modern film!)...

Good characterization with a simple story of trust and broken promises. None of the HK fighting scenes, or the Hollywood type of heroes, but it is good because of it. The characters are strong, I really felt for them.

Understanding the mandarin definitely gives the English subtitles the edge. The film is 3 hours, but it didn't feel like it.

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

positive
OMG, it is seriously the best show in the world. It rocks harder then Jackass and CKY and is so funny and entertaining. I love the show. All 5 seasons are awesome but for a quick summary: Season 1:- Great if you wanna plan a scavenger hunt, watch the house be pulled apart and enjoy seeing Phil bing starved.

Season 2:- Great if you wanna see them buy Castle Bam, watch a slayer concert, see the wonder that is Mardi Gras and the fun of getting to it, see a demo derby and actually see a the making and opening of a Tree Top Casino.

Season 3:- Great if you wanna see probably the first Driveway Skatepark, a civil war, Johnny Knoxville, a pirate ship and Don Vito actually winning one of Bam's reindeer games.

Season 4:- Great if you wanna see them in Europe, them getting Jobs, the building of a State and a bayou and The Dudesons Season 5:- Great if ya want to see them in Brazil, Ape's Birthday, Mike Vallely, The Metal Mulisha, Bams Lambo disappearing, Bams Hummer being destroyed, a playboy party in bams swimming pool and the very Last ever Viva La Bam :(
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. 

(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) 

The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. 

I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.

The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.

The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.
Determine the sentiment:

Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican. 

There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states "Don't Drink Poison". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.

In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the "actor", but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two "D's" (direction and the DOG). All in all a "10".

/
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is like something I have NEVER seen before. It had me cracking up the whole time I don't think there was one scene that I didn't laugh through. It is about a girl from the country in South who goes off to a big town for college. At the school she befriends the RA across the hall. When she realizes that he has no family to go to for Thanksgiving she invites him to come home with her. Rabecca and her family and her serious boyfriend all go out to dinner one night and Becca realizes what her boyfriend is about to do...Propose. She urges Cral to do something so he stands up and shouts something like... Sorry mate but you are too late I already asked Becca to marry me a couple of weeks ago back at the school and she said yes. That all turns into Chaos. Please watch this classic it is totally worth it... I swear.
If you haven't seen this movie than you need to. It rocks and you have to watch it. It is so funny and will make you laugh your guts out!! so you have to watch it and i saw it about a billion and a half times and still think it is funny. so you have to. yes i have memorized the whole movie and could quote it to you from start to finish. you must see this move. it is also cute because it is half a chick flick. if you don't watch it then you are really missing out.this movie even has cute guys in it and that is always a bonus. so in summary watch the movie now and trust me you will not be making a mistake. did i mention the music is good too. So you should like it if you enjoy music. This is a movie that they rated correctly and it will work for anyone.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hitchcock once gave an interview where he said he like to direct screenplays that had an ordinary person minding their own business, who's accidentally caught up in an awful chain of events that they can't get out of until the dastardly plot that's behind their troubles is resolved. That way, the audience can feel more sympathy for the hero. We certainly do in this fine film. Barry Kane is only trying to help his fellow-man out by performing acts of kindness and consideration, like helping Fry pick up the letters he dropped at the factory. Barry even returns a lost $100 bill to Fry later on...that was BIG money in 1943!! It's Barry's acts of Christian kindness that get him into trouble and soon, he's wrongly accused of sabotage and murder and will likely hang if he can't clear himself. Similar to The 39 Steps in plot, the hero travels cross-country where he discovers plans for further acts of terrorism by fascisistic cells, an arch-villain who nobody could believe to be a closet-Nazi, and a beautiful blonde, Patricia Martin, who first suspects and hates then eventually falls in love with Barry Kane. Hitch's trademark touches of humor are here, too. Patricia is a billboard model who's various roadside ads are a help and comfort to Barry as he hitches a ride with the bad guys, all the way from Las Vegas to NYC. We meet a trucker who's a one-man comedy act "Someone convinced my wife it was stylish to eat three meals a day." Field employees of the fascist spy ring grouse about being forgotten or ignored by the "suits" just as if they were working for some legit enterprise. During a chase scene into a cinema, audience members laugh at the action of a schlocky comedy/gangster flick as the saboteur cell shoots it out for real with the good guys and accidentially kills a guffawing movie-patron. Awful for the dead old man, but funny! Hitch liked to use famous monuments in his movies and this is the best instance, with the Statue of Liberty as backdrop and ironic icon! It works even better than the Mt Rushmore scene in NBNW.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.

This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. 

The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)

This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.

If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull. Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself. Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable.

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

positive
I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

As a child of the 80's like so many of the other reviewers here I hated the original V and V: the Final Battle. I own both on VHS and never hook up the VCR to watch them. I do remember not liking this short lived series very much, but I couldn't remember why, so I rented the first disc. By the third episode I had my memory refreshed. It's terrible. The writing is beyond horrid. It's not even FUN. They had a lot of material to work with here, but it seemed like they just didn't know what to do so they turned it into 'Days of our Lives with lizard aliens'. How cool and full of potential is the concept of Elizabeth the Starchild? All they could think of to do is grow her into a whiny, boring teenager to compete with her mother romantically? Marc Singer looked less embarrassed to be in Beastmaster II than he did when he was trapped in this drivel....point is, whether you're one of the younger folk who's just discovered V or one of us older sci-fi fans looking to rediscover some old fun, spare yourself and SKIP THIS!
Write a positive movie review.

(Some Spoilers) Sweeping into New York City on a first-class railroad car a killer who doesn't kill with a gun or knife or club but just with his,or it's, touch and breath. A killer that's as old, or even older, then man himself. That killer has a name it's know the world over as smallpox.

Arriving in New York one cold November afternoon the killer hidden inside of Sheila Bennet, Evelyn Keyes, and like a Trojen Horse it waits until the opportunity presents itself. Then like a ticking time bomb with it's fuse set off explodes throughout the length and breath of the city.

Sheila knows that she's being followed by a U.S Customs officer who's been on her tail since she came back to the US from the Island nation of Cuba. Having smuggled $50,000.00 of illegal uncut diamonds she had to be careful in getting them to her husband Matt, Charles Korvin, to be cut and sold to unsuspecting jewelers in the city. 

Mailing the diamonds ahead of time Sheila knows that if caught the diamonds won't be found on her. What she doesn't know is that Matt is two timing her by having an affair with her kid sister Francie, Lola Albrght. Even worse he plans to check out of town with the diamonds leaving her as well as Francie holding the bag.

Even though we know right from the start of Sheila's deathly condition it doesn't really come to the surface until much later in the movie.The first half of "The Killer that stalked New York" is a crime suspense/drama with the U.S Customs officials and NYC police looking for the stolen diamonds. As Sheila starts to get sick and begins to infect everyone whom she comes in contact with the film reaches the point of a mass panic in the streets type horror movie. 

Both the police and custom officials together with members of the city's Health Depertment race against the clock to find Sheila before she infects the entire city of New York with the deadly smallpox infection that she's carrying. Sheila finding out from Matt's boss Willie Dennis,Jim Backus,that he quit his job as a nightclub piano player and that he was having an affair with Francie shocks her into the realization to what a heel he is.

Confronting Francie at her apartment it turns out that Matt not only stiffed Shelia but her sister as well. Which later leads the guilt-ridden Francie to take her own life. On the run and not knowing that she's infected with smallpox Sheila goes to her brother Sid (With Bissell),who manages a flop-house on the Bowery, to find a place to stay. Only too late does Sheila, and Sid, find out the the stolen diamonds is the last of her problems. Knowing that she's dying Sheila goes to the office of jeweler Arnold Moss, Art Smith, knowing that sleaze-ball of a husband Matt, who ended up beating old man Moss into a bloody pulp, is going to be there to exact vengeance on him.

Doucmentry-type drama, based on a true story, with striking black and white on-location photography makes this movie about the horrors of unseen and deadly smallpox unleashed on a unsuspecting public well worth watching.
I acquired this film a couple of years ago and on trying to find some info about it I found that even the mighty IMDb didn't have it listed. That should have been all I needed to know.

With Friends Like These is an anthology that plays like a collection of second rate Twilight Zone / Outer Limits episodes all linked together by a bus journey that never really seems to tie in with the rest of the film. Of the three stories, the only one that I gleaned any entertainment value from was the second episode in which a man (of sorts) grows out of the bacteria in a guys fridge. This episode wins points for a few spots of humour and it's bizarre premise. Other than that there is an episode with a talking car (bland and directionless) and an episode where a girl visits a very unique dating agency (my dog guessed the ending of this one).

As has been mentioned in other comments, the 18 rating is entirely unwarranted. There is nothing to offend here. If you're after a good horror anthology check out Asylum or the Creepshow films instead.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

i had no idea what this movies was about, it jumps from plot line to plot line erratically linking incoherent ideas with one another. it simply doesn't make sense. 

the chopped up time line doesn't help either. we start in present day get a flash back to the past and then return to the future only to go back into the past.

this movie is also filled with horrible sappy lines and cliché themes such as princess and the pauper, "you cant have me even in my death" lines, "you don't even love me enough" line. cliché to the max!

fighting scene were horribly corny, lighting was constantly misplaced which offset the CG with the actors (meanning you could tell some of the backgrounds were clearly CG). 

Although the society in di moon was quite interesting.

i wouldn't really recommend his to anyone, avoid if possible.

if you found this comment hard to follow, the movie would be equally as bad.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Only the Brits could make a film like this and have it be so tastefully charming! Betty (Brenda Blethyn) wants something more out of life, but she doesn't know what, when she realizes she is in love with her childhood friend, Boris (Alfred Molina), who owns the local funeral parlor. Meanwhile, an American mortician (Christopher Walken) who "wants to put the 'fun' back in funerals" moves into this small Welsh community with his assistant (Lee Evans) and wants to give Boris a run for his money with flashy, themed funerals. (Star Trek funeral, anyone?) Brenda and Boris decide to stage Brenda's death and funeral, with hilarious results. A very enjoyable film - if you're a fan of British comedies such as "Waking Ned Devine", you'll love this.
Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.

Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as "Its A Wonderful World" and "You Can't Take It With You", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I mostly rented this movie to see Shannon Elizabeth. She played well in this movie, but the plot sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything just about trying to stay single after making a pact when one of Jerry O' Connell's friends gets married. The other friends put together this money and who's ever last to get married get's the money ($10,000) from all his friends. Anyway the movie just try to follow through by making no since and trying to make it more funny then making since. I'm glad I only paid .50 for this movie. It really wasn't good at all. I rated it **** out of 10 stars!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

B.B. Thornton proves to be a great actor in this little seen movie. Thornton really gets into his characters--literally. I caught this on cable one night and enjoyed it. Too bad it was released nationwide in theaters the same year as "Fear and Loathing" and "Half-Baked."
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.

If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include "Ojos Que No Ven", "Dias de Santiago", "Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda", "Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero", etc. The director of the "Fall of Fujimori" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative