cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Some guy named Karl Rhamarevich learns how to live on even after death through telekinesis. He's interred in a mausoleum. That same night Julie (Meg Tilly) has to spend the night there to get into a group called "The Sisters". And Karl's "power" is in full bloom.

Silly movie. I saw it in a theatre when I was 21 and was generally bored. The PG rating should have tipped me off--this is a horror movie for kids. One REAL stupid scene at the end has a corpse breaking THROUGH concrete to hit a young guy! For starters corpses are put in HEAD first making it impossible for the corpse to use his arms and there's no way anybody is going to break through concrete. When you're noticing silly mistakes like that, the movie is not doing its job.

It has two good scenes--two of "The Sisters" are "attacked" by floating corpses crowding them in. At one point one of the sisters punches a corpse in the stomach--her hand goes IN the body and she can't pull it out! That scene has stayed with me every since. And there's a cute little bit involving a corpse and a toothbrush at the end (which had my audience laughing). But the rest of the movie is a dim, dull memory. For kids only--adults will be bored. I give it a 3.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a "cool" show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with "punchlines" that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...
Determine the sentiment:

Somehow, this film burrowed it's way into the soft spot of my heart. Don't ask me how it happened, but I suppose having the film feature Ed "I'll Sponsor Anything" McMahon as a tail-chasing crack hustler had a bit to do with it.

Frankly, I was disappointed with Slaughter's first outing in 1972. Nothing more than a quick throw-together to follow Shaft-mania. How does the sequel get away from this? Big Jim Brown seems stronger as Slaughter here than in the first. Perhaps this is due to the fact that one year later he had something to work from, instead of his simple "Be like Shaft" motivation before.

The most outstanding part about the film is the soundtrack provided by pimp-daddy number one, James Brown. Almost every scene is graced with a touch of funk by the Godfather. An excellent period film, for the music, wardrobe, vehicles, lingo, and hair. I should also point out this film is also an excellent period film to represent a time in motion picture history when Jim Brown and Ed McMahon could actually GROW hair.

Double the chicks, double the blow, triple the body count, and factor in Ed McMahon and James Brown. You'll be in for one hell of a 70s action flick, and one that outshines it's predecessor no less. For my money, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off can play ball with any Blaxploitation film ever made. Even Shaft. Chances are you'll disagree, but Slaughter's Big Rip-Off has it's own distinct feel. Something the original was lacking.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
For the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clichés, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the "geniuses" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.

I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.

Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with this.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
H.G. Wells is spinning. No doubt about it.

Really, this would have been a decent sci-fi/adventure movie, if it hadn't been based on a classic novel and directed by the author's grandson. I kept hearing about how this would be the definitive version of the novel. What resulted was a pathetic and simpleminded bastardization.

The novel is a great sci-fi story but what a lot of people miss when they read it (probably because they read it when they're very young) is that it's overflowing with social commentary. The Eloi and Morlocks are a satire of the class distinctions of Victorian England, and the overall message of the film is that EVERYTHING DECAYS AND DEGENERATES, a satiric jab at Victorian complacency and their belief that their civilization would last forever. There's no love story, no romance with a beautiful Eloi woman....in the novel, the Eloi are 3-foot-tall childlike beings with a mental capacity not far above that of an animal. The Time Traveler does befriend an Eloi woman but it's clear he thinks of her more like a pet, and anyway she's killed before the novel ends.

This movie first tries to give us a totally stupid backstory as to "why he wants to travel through time." The treacly romance and the Lessons He Must Learn are enough to make film fans vomit.

The journey into the future is punctuated by a future disaster. OK, not bad, but it would have had more punch if we had been allowed to see that mankind just generally degenerates, as in the book. More a reflection of the times, I guess, as the George Pal version had a nuclear war take place.

The general story? Ugh. A total misrepresentation of the novel. The Eloi are too competent and warlike. The Morlocks are too intelligent. The UberMorlock is an embarrassment, and there's no setup. He just shows up in time to be killed. Yawn.

Samantha Mumba does OK. Guy Pearce is one of my favorites but he often seems confused and in pain. (Reportedly he broke a rib while filming this.) He also looks unhealthy and overly thin, as if he had been ill for a long time before making this.

A sad, sorry film version of one of the world's classics. H. G. Wells deserves better....MUCH better.


How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
How 'Thursday' managed to avoid attention remains a mystery. A potent mix of comedy and crime, this one takes chances where Tarantino plays it safe with the Hollywood formula. The risks don't always pay off: one character in one sequence comes off inappropriately silly and falls flat. In the lead role, Thomas Jane gives a wonderful and complex performance, and two brief appearances by Mickey Rourke hint at the high potential of this much under- and mis-used actor. Here's a director one should keep one's eye on.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Stupidly beautiful. This movie epitomizes the 'so bad it's good' genre of films. 

The only two talents in it are Richard Boone and Joan van Ark, and only Boone is any good. It's kind of sad that the man who rose to fame as Paladin should wind up in this ugly pile of celluloid. While he turns in a fantastic performance, I couldn't help but feel that he so outclassed all his fellow actors in this piece that he shouldn't even have been there.

The effects in this film are laughable, but fun. The idea of a dinosaur being buried in the wall of a cave and suddenly coming to life is B-movie gold. When the 'triceratops' gets killed, watch how it falls. It's clear that the stunt performer in the FRONT of the costume knows the timing best. He falls to the ground, well before the back half of the dinosaur follows suit.

Speaking of 'suits', there is nothing good to say about the purple tyrannosaur, in this flick. It seems to have some kind of stealth technology, since Bunta (reputed to be the best tracker in the world) twice fails to notice it until it's within biting range of him. I don't know how all the prints are, but in the version I own, the Tyranno's roar contains Godzilla's trademark bellow.

This is loads of fun, to watch, if you like bad movies. I love them, and especially bad monster movies, so I consider this the gem of my collection. If bad movies are your thing, definitely get this one.
"Julia Kerbridge (Catherine Mary Stewart) is working hard to become a doctor. Suddenly, Julia finds herself the guardian of her young niece, Amanda, after her parents are found murdered. Julia has a new neighbor, the mysterious Kevin Finney (Rob Lowe). Her hectic life comes crashing down when it becomes apparent that the young Amanda holds the key to a terrible secret. For she too is now the target of the killers. Julia must discover whether Kevin is friend or foe, and unlock the sinister mystery before the murderer strikes again," according to the DVD sleeve synopsis.

This thriller quietly falls apart at the seams, but it is interesting some of the time. Stalker Sean Devine's background telephone scene (outside the police station) and Mr. Lowe's violin (restaurant) are tensely played. But, early on, it's difficult not to miss the fact that one of the supposedly sophisticated killers purposely twists his foot in some red paint at the murder scene. Unfortunately, this is not an intricate plot point; and, there are worse story stumbles afoot. Overall "Dead Silent" is not a bad way to spend some time, if there is nothing better on, or you're into Lowe and his co-stars.

**** Dead Silent (1999) Roger Cardinal ~ Catherine Mary Stewart, Rob Lowe, Arlen Aguayo-Stewart, Larry Day

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

negative
The back of my DVD describes the plot of "El Chucabra":after his capture in the wilderness,the legendary bloodthirsty creature Chupacabra escapes into the city creating mayhem and panic.As they pursue the deadly beast,an animal control officer and scientist Dr Starlina Davide realize that a vigilante with his own suspicious plan is also tracking the elusive killer for a mysterious research facility run by the diabolical Dr Goodspeed.This putrid horror flick is somewhat amusing,if you watch it under the influence of alcohol.The script is completely silly,the acting is wooden beyond belief and the direction is amateurish.Two rubber Chupacabra suits are easily the best thing about this movie.3 out of 10 and that's being extremely kind.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Attending this film was an excuse to escape the work I had to do for my classes but it turned out to be one of my best experiences here in France. The film makes quick work of building multidimensional characters and has an excellently smooth storyline. The characters really did have the voices you would expect reading the graphic novels and the artistic talent exceeded my expectations The music was catchy and the comedy toying and lighthearted, almost a flinstoneish inclusion of modern items in playful manners. The film was attention grabbing, cute and action packed at the same time. A wonderful tale spun expertly. I'll be showing it to my French students.
Write a positive movie review.

I have searched for this movie for years. I have great memories of the first-rate acting and singing in this movie. I never knew that the reason the movie was unobtainable was because of the actions of the Gershwin family -- SHAME ON THEM for trying to suppress at American Classic!! I can only hope they will relent and allow this movie to be release and enjoyed by the American public.

Sammy Davis, Jr. is at his absolute best in this film. The only other performance of his this is it's equal was in 'Anna Lucasta'--another terrific film that I wish would be released on DVD.

Porgy & Bess contained a first-rate, all-star cast. Hopefully one day you'll get to see for yourself.
What's an example of a movie review?

As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to find happiness? 

If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who "wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy" (one of the local lads who has his eye set on her). She falls  and falls hard  for Kitty Butler, a male impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her dresser 

Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story, and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump in your throat at the end.

If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did!
What's an example of a movie review?

Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding  none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it  avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.
As I looked at this movie once again, I think it belongs among Hitchcock's greatest films. The first time I saw it I was just blown away by the suspense, action and imagery. It has the gripping ending, the deranged murderer, the innocent man framed or victimized by circumstances, some great on-location shots, e.g. the Jefferson Memorial in Washington and Penn Central in New York. It also has great supporting actors with Hitch's daughter Patricia in the role of the younger sister to Ruth Roman and the stalwart Leo G. Carroll in another of his Hitchcock movies. The merry-go-round episode near the end is one of the most nerve-wracking in Hitchcock's body of work.

Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony (his last full film) gives a great performance as the deranged stranger on the train, who worms himself into the life of the unsuspecting tennis star, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Granger plays the nice guy who is caught up in a messy divorce. The movie opens with the camera showing the shoes of two separate men as they leave their taxis to board the train. Eventually, they meet and the story takes over. The stranger takes an unusual interest in the tennis star and as the movie continues,the stranger becomes a stalker. The action shifts from place to place, including Washington, the fictional small town of Metcalf, the Forest Hills tennis championship, and a passenger train taking the two leading men back and forth on separate missions. Towards the end, the pace of a tennis game is woven into the plot as they race against time. The camera cuts away to the faces of the athletes as they volley and serve in a remarkable series of shots. When the closely-fought contest is over, the climactic chase takes place. Hitchcock has a love for trains and it is great to see Penn Station, long since gone. Trains are featured in the 39 Steps, the Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, North by Northwest and this movie. 

This classic Hitchcock thriller took place at the start of a period of great creativity for the master of suspense - the 1950's and I am convinced that one day it will be given its due in the Hitchcock hall of fame.

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

positive
For a long time, this was my favorite of the Batman films. It had the best cinematography and an edgy feel to it with two wild characters - Catwomen and The Penguin - along with the always-interesting Christopher Walken. However, after the last viewing it finally slipped in my ratings and, frankly, I now prefer the last Batman: Batman Begins, with Christian Bale.

THE GOOD - Nonetheless, this is still the most intriguing of the five latter-day Batman films. The stylish cinematography in here is the best of any of the Batman movies. Director Tim Burton is known for his films which feature stunning visuals, as this is a great example. The three characters listed above are all very different and very interesting, almost fascinating. Of the villains, I preferred Catwomen, finding her the most fun to watch before and after she changed. Violence is not overdone here as it was in several of the other Batman stories but one is never bored watching this. As he did in the first film, Michael Keaton does a fine job playing Batman/Bruce Wayne.

THE BAD - For a movie based on a comic strip that mostly kids read, I still think these first two Batman movies, both done by Burton, were too dark and the profanity was definitely not appropriate. Although, unlike the first movie, there was no usage of the Lord's name in vain in here, there still was profanity and both villains made too many sexual remarks. That would have been okay if they hadn't marketed this film for kids as well as adults. Danny DeVito's "Penguin" is downright gross in spots. "Grotesque" I can handle, but who wants "gross." Few guys, meanwhile, complained about the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer playing Catwoman. Generall too much darkness and some cheap shots on Christian- bashing also made me re-consider my previously-high rating of this film.

OVERALL - Fabulous visuals and memorable characters make this the most interesting in the Batman series, but too-dark an edge, too gross and too much anti-religious bias all finally turned me off after a half-dozen looks at this film. Sorry, but I prefer a kinder-gentler Batman movie. After all, it's just a cartoon. Most will disagree, but I was glad to see the series lighten up after this one.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This if the first movie I've given a 10 to in years. If there was ever a movie that needed word-of-mouth to promote, this is it. A $4 Mil box is a disgrace. People don't know what it's about. If you have any appreciation for the Blues, or just a good use of excellent music, that alone is reason to go see it. How many people knew Jackson could sing, and damn fine too. You hear books and movies taunting that they're about salvation. After seeing this, you'll never be able to forgive such trivial use of the word. Yes, it's gritty, sexy, down home truth, bizarre and in-your-face real. Isn't that the best reason to see a movie? Those that get my meaning won't stay away from seeing this another week.

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

positive
Before Last Call w/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.

On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the "Rickroll" on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).

And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the "third world". The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.

The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.

There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).

In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a "1" is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, "Tourist Trap" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying "anything goes" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.

Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across "Slausen's Lost Oasis," a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.

Director David ("Puppermaster," "The Arrival") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, "Tourist Trap" is well worth visiting.
Determine the sentiment:

I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When I watched this movie in my adolescence, I attempted for the soundtrack. Some bands of the soundtrack I still didn't know. However, during the film, I already noticed her quality. U2, Blondie, Police. , Quincy Jones , Commodores .Sensational soundtrack.

In Brazil, there is a long time this film didn't pass in TV. Today, he passed in cable TV and I remembered to access the site to do the comment.

The End of the film surprised me a lot, but it is what happens in the real life. Not always, what thought about being the ideal, it is what happens. 

The life brings us a lot of surprises.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I was wandering through my local library, browsing VHS tapes, when I saw a movie that made my mouth drop--Waterbabies. I have been hoping to see this movie again--it's been over 22 years since I saw it (cable-movie channel around 78-79). I had recalled a good many of the details--Grimes in particular. My son, who is 4, and I watched it.

He agreed with me that Grimes was "Not nice", and the best way for me to describe it was that he didn't love Tom. He accepted that. It was amazing that I still recalled some of the songs, too! They had stuck in my head for 22 years--which means they had to have some memorable-ness, eh?

It's a good child's movie, with parental guidance in case of questions about what children had to go through that were not nobility/society in the time-frame. This is what all the children faced daily (except for a few lucky ones), and while we try to Disney-coat movies, making them more pc for children these days, it doesn't mean that cruelty didn't exist--or even still doesn't. I enjoyed the animation. It wasn't Disney, no. I don't think Don Bluth touched a paintbrush on this movie.

There's a lot going for it, though. David T plays two roles! (I really like him!) James M does too. The waterbabies themselves are cute. You feel sorry for Tom, and root for him. Then Billie herself is extraordinary in the multi-role part she's playing--it's as if her eyes ARE magickal! I'm a huge fan of WoO, TLW&TW, and company (AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HP!), and I filed this along with those kind of movies. Yes, he jumps in the water, but not because of suicide. He jumped because he trusted the lady in black--she'd been appearing to him all along.

I think it's a good movie! If you have kids, pick up a rental copy. If you happen to locate a buy-able copy, let me know where! Ian liked it! :)

Dee
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This was a first feature for Clinton, I was there, while he shot this mess back in Adelaide around 98...

Although I wasn't involved directly in the production, I was witness to the typically delusional behavior, post set, that went down,: the parties, the drugs, the illusionary glamor, really an example of what not to do when making a film, but also a byproduct of young, talented people getting caught up in classic ideologies of fame & worldly position.

I like Clinton, we had a curious friendship, he deserves to have another crack with a more mature script...there the problems lay, and I'm sure a much better job will be done, if there's a next time round.! Because, frankly, he certainly didn't do himself any favours with this on his CV and neither did the cast...but hey, it was a paying job, in country where actors regularly starve to death

In summary, fascinating to watch 'the making of' basically, not so much fun to experience (alas!).

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

negative
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.

I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.

I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.

This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.

6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.

Do not waste your life!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.

1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.

2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.

3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.

4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.

5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.

Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.
Pity the poor reviewer who disliked / didn't understand this wonderful film. What a sad life he must lead!

This movie has more to say about life and relationships than most I've ever seen, yet it's not dark or preachy like the "ordinary people" type of film. It is mostly humorous, though not technically a comedy.

The whole thing feels a little like a fantasy, perhaps Shakespear's "Midsummer Nights' Dream." Beautiful, intelligent women abound, with wonderful cinematography and a non-insulting screenplay that doesn't miss a beat.

I look forward to seeing it every time this film is re-run on cable. It's like re-reading a favorite, treasured book.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.

Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.

Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.

If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A hugely enjoyable screen version of Rona Jaffe's best-selling pot-boiler about the trials and tribulations, (and, naturally, the loves), of a group of women involved in one way or another in the New York publishing business. Directed by Jean Negulesco, fairly fresh from the success of "Three Coins in a Fountain", and the prototype for the likes of "Sex and the City", except that here the sex all takes place off-screen.

The bright young female talents of the day, (Hope Lange, Diane Baker, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer), are all nicely cast while Joan Crawford pops up as a Queen Bitch of an editor who could probably eat Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly and spit her out; with absolutely no effort at all she steals the movie. The men include Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan, (if it wasn't Rossano Brazzi it had to be Louis Jourdan), Robert Evans, (before he decided, wisely, to go behind the camera) and Brian Aherne. There are more suds on display than you will find in your average launderette but if, like me, you enjoy "Desperate Housewives", not to mention Carrie Bradshaw and company then you will probably love this. A very guilty pleasure.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As I have said before, I am NOT a fan of Tweety. He's just so aggravating I wish Sylvester would just eat him and get it over with.

In this cartoon Sly is homeless once again and is back to feeding out of garbage cans. He spots a cruise ship leaving port nearby and decides to hop aboard when he spys Tweety is one of the passengers. 

The ship provides an adequate stage for the following hijinks and Sly desperately tries to catch the annoying bird and avoid seasickness. If only for once he's succeed by chewing and swallowing, thus finishing of the irritating Canary forever. But, as cartoons starring Tweety go, this one is quite good, but it's ALL thanks to that brilliant cat.

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

positive
I really only watched this movie because it had Rupert Grint in it (who I knew as Ron from the Harry Potter movies). I had never really appreciated Rupert as an actor until this movie. I loved the entire film. Rupert does a wonderful job in this hilarious, quirky movie. I think the movie could have been fine without the sex, but it worked somehow. I can't wait to see more of Rupert's films in the future. Julie Walters also did an amazing job. In the Harry Potter movies, she has a very small role, so I didn't quite know what to expect from her either. But she was wonderful as Dame Evie. The part where she swallows the key was absolutely hilarious. Overall, an amazing movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.
What's an example of a movie review?

About as hilarious as 50s British comedy can get, THE BELLES OF ST TRINIAN'S has almost a gag a minute... and at 91 minutes makes for a terrific time. Other films I equally recommend of the same period are THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT and THE GREEN MAN. In fact any film with Alistair Sim or Terry Thomas, George Cole, Richard Wattis or Joyce Grenfell or any combination is a delight. in ST TRINIAN'S we get a double dose of Sims playing two roles with that hilarious disdain he constantly lets ripple across his face. Joyce Grenfell as Ruby Gates (oh dear! that name!) plays her 'jolly hockey sticks' constable-incognito to hilarious perfection. Possibly the best laughs come from George Cole as Flash Harry (who comes out of a bush when whistled at) and various visits to classrooms by Ms Fritton (Sims) reacting to explosions ('Oh poor Betty!") or science lab gin production ("just send a few bottles of that up to my room"'). Every part of the film is funny from the characters, their costumes the antics and the setting. There were sequels but the first three are the best: including this one, BLUE MURDER AT ST TRINIAN'S and later in color THE GREAT ST TRINIAN'S TRAIN ROBBERY.
Write a negative movie review.

In the mountains of Japan, forlorn young artist Sessue Hayakawa (as Tatsu aka "The Dragon Painter") paints magnificent landscapes. He prays "Divinity" will restore his fiancée, whom he believes was changed into a dragon, 1,000 years ago. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, an forlorn older painter, Edward Peil (as Kano Indara) laments not having a son to carry on his family line of artists. When Mr. Peil sees Mr. Hayakawa's paintings, he sees a painter worthy to become his "son and disciple." Hayakawa also falls in love with Peil's daughter Tsuru Aoki (Ume-Ko), believing she's the reincarnation of his long lost princess. But, with his love fulfilled, Hayakawa loses his ability to paint 

An introduction notes, "'The Dragon Painter' was originally released in 1919 by the Haworth Pictures, a Hollywood-based production company formed the previous year by Sessue Hayakawa, a Japanese-born actor who enjoyed great popularity in the silent period. The film was ninth of twenty-two features produced by Haworth, each of which was tailored to Hayakawa's talents and to his stock company of Japanese actors." Fortunately, a print of this film was found, in France, and restored.

The description, "The Dragon Painter is a fantasy-allegory of love and creative inspiration that is lost when longing is fulfilled," is accurate. "With its production, Hayakawa intended to provide a different view of Japanese culture to American audiences, avoiding the stereotyping, violence, and melodramatic conflict expected in 'Oriental' films of the period." Hayakawa was successful in that part of his goal; although, this film probably did not and will not appeal to most viewers, and is not the best example of its intent.

**** The Dragon Painter (9/28/19) William Worthington ~ Sessue Hayakawa, Edward Peil, Tsuru Aoki
this was made in that beloved age known as the 80s and shot in my hometown of New York City. actually, this has become one of my favorite b sci-fi movies. Oh, sure, it really stinks to high hell, but there's so much to make fun of, laugh, and enjoy that it becomes more tolerable after every viewing.

Such as:

Try to find the similarities between this and...well, OK, there is nothing similarly bad as this. Well, except Castle of FuManchu.

Sock puppets can be dangerous to your health

Create supense by describing through voice over rather than showing any imagery

Have leading villainess "Valeria" (played wonderfully by Angelika Jager) deliver some of the most riveting lines ever!!

Lots of men and women in post apocalyptic fashion (aka leather bikinis, loin cloths, and dead animal fur)

Do be horrified by the end!

 I'm off to have a salad. Toodles!!

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

negative
Cummings is falsely accused of sabotage and goes on the lam, looking for the real culprit. The familiar Hitchcock theme of a man wrongly accused of a crime is nicely played out in this entertaining fare that has elements of "The Thirty Nine Steps" and "North by Northwest," although it is not as good as either of those classics. There are some impressive set pieces, including the finale on the Statue of Liberty. The plot is implausible and unconvincing and, after a terrific start, it seems to run out of steam. Cummings is likable if somewhat stiff in the lead. Lane is the blonde but not the cool variety of the director's later films. The supporting roles are generally well played.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel "The Hunters" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp).
This film had about everything one could wish when viewing it originally, at the end of the 1960's decade. It was immensely entertaining, and provided a contemporary view of the many changes which had occurred during that period - and were still ongoing - in terms of the Black Power movement, Vietnam, and the volatile movement which followed the quieter, preceding postwar 1950's.

All of this and one of the funniest films, then or now.

Viewing it for the second time recently, I was surprised to find it as engrossing as when seen originally. Its humor is as funny, and its message as strong.

And in viewing it now, you get all of this, while at the same time gaining the added enjoyment of its being a "period piece," and a superb chronicling of its this historic, turbulent time.

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

positive