cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I had to watch this movie for professional reasons and can only say it's a complete waste of time. When running, Baldwin looks like an ape, Characters are dull, same story has been told 1000 times better in other movies. I think everything has been now said about this film, but IMDb requires me to write 10 lines. So:Boring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivial
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Jesus Christ, what the hell happened here?. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, how is it possible that they screwed up such a nice idea for a movie. To tell you the truth I was so hyped for this, I though it was like Blair Witch but with actual alien creatures chasing the camera guy. Goddamn it, I have been reduced to fast forwarding this pile of sh*t, and I never do that while seeing movies. The high rating here on IMDb makes me believe that actual aliens are giving 10's for this piece of crap.

Invasion is about well, an invasion. The movie starts by saying that everything you're about to see is real, blahblahblah. Then they go and tell me about a special camera system used in cars, as if I need to believe their bullsh*t to enjoy this movie. Next thing you know I'm seeing the most boring car driving ever filmed, in a forest at night mind you. Is this a movie, or a Disney theme park ride? The first 20 minutes is all boring dialog between cops while seeing grass and one straight road with a flashlight. Where the hell were the aliens?! They were sleeping of course! Then we learn that bad acting is not only reduced to high school plays, as the cop behind the camera goes out of his car to look for a missing man who was 'nightfishing' and had stumbled upon a mysterious meteorite. I wonder what happens to him? Out of nowhere, we see the 'nightfishing' guy walking like a zombie. The cop is apparently too dumb to notice that something is wrong with this man. Apparently he was indeed dumb, as the zombie/alien guy injects in the cop's ear some sort of alien parasite, thus changing him into an alien. Then the cop/alien goes back into his car, looks for a young couple that were having sex a while back in the forest, gets to them, changes the guy into an alien, and then the girl runs to the cop's car and escapes. If this quick plot introduction didn't get it in your head that this movie was bad, then the following 40 minutes will. Watching this movie is as painful as stabbing yourself repeatedly with a plastic fork. The script, while it may sound interesting on the back of the DVD box, is badly directed and sadly, we are left with another boring straight to DVD atrocity.

The only thing that kept me awake were the constant flashing and loud sound effects (lamentably). If seeing the same forest trail for 63 minutes is not enough, we must endure crappy flashing techniques to "scare" the viewer and constant wailing of a bad actress that gets old and annoying pretty quick.

If you feel you must rent this, I say to you, why? There are better SciFi/Horror films out there. Even the dreaded remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is more entertaining than this. For the love of all things good, don't bother with his crap. My eyes bled, and for the first time, I wanted suicide. A 1/10, avoid this like a disease.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards

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

negative
This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a cherished movie from my childhood!! I can still hum the theme song at the drop of a hat!! I remember getting to stay up late to watch this movie with my father, usually two to three times a year. We always referred to it as "Giant Robot". Although the effects in this movie are crude compared to today's standards, they were perfect for this movie's genre. I am also a BIG fan of the Japanese "Monster" movies, so this movie fell right in to place with the others. It's been years since I've seen this movie & would love to get my hands on a copy of it to share with my 8 year old daughter.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films ("Piranha", "Humanoids from the Deep", "The Black Scorpion", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. "Raptor", "written" and "directed" by "Jay Andrews" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, "Chopping Mall") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s "Carnosaur" trilogy.

	Wynorski's credits are in quotes because "Raptor" isn't a tribute to the "Carnosaur" films, and not even a remake. "Raptor" IS the "Carnosaur" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of "dino's eye view" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The "new" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the "Carnosaur" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the "spring-loaded animal", something is seriously wrong.

	As it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the "Jurassic Park" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the "Carnosaur" movies.
Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Like a twisty country road, "Tough Luck" takes the viewer for a ride. There is nothing wrong with plot curves, as long as believability doesn't fly out the window. Unfortunately in the end the film does challenge an audience's belief tolerance. Nevertheless, it is easy to forgive this fault due to the superior acting, character development, and wonderful carnival atmosphere. Do not expect to like any of the characters. Armand Asante, Norman Redus, and Dagmara Dominczyk, play shady con-artists, not exactly the type of person easily admired. The double crosses come fast and furious, and the final cross is a bit of a stretch. Recommended. - MERK
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Yet again not quite bad enough to make it enjoyable. In fact this one is just boring. It's reasonably well made, even though the script is bad, the effects are OK and the acting average. (Apart from James Mason who is always great, but in this one underused)

I suppose it is hard to write anything about this film because it didn't evoke any reaction in me what so ever.

Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Shame on you if you give this film a low rating. How can you not like a film that has Doug McClure, Peter Cushing, silly rubber monsters, fights, (and for the guys, that woman that was the baddie's henchwoman in The Spy Who Loved Me and one of the seventies Sinbad films, not wearing very much of whom my mother said "She wasn't picked for the colour of her eyes"), lava, silly wigs and a daft Victorian drilling machine very much like the one used in the old Thunderbirds series? Whoever watched this film and slagged it off was watching it for the wrong reasons. It may be crap, but is definitely good crap. They don't make 'em like they used to, sigh......
Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T".
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. 

I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. 

Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.

So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". 

The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.

Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.

Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...

...seriously.
oh well... its funny. should have been a sadistic comedy, a lot of horror movies lack common sense,but i think a retarded caveman would weasel his way around this situation. Don't really expect Hitchcock or anything close to this. this is a good one for friends,but i wouldn't recommend it for anything else.this movie lacks all the substance of a true horror movie,the suspense,the shock,and good characters. the killer failed to be the unstoppable force that i expected him to be,and he seemed to be the average angry "D" student able to outsmart only stupid people. and the really funny thing is the horrible acting and the lack of emotion of the so called "victims"

3/10 just expect this one in the daily funnies.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It's always interesting to catch a line in a film that winds up being somewhat prophetic for the future of an actor. In this case, I was intrigued by Edward G. Robinson's statement to Barbara Stanwyck - "I promised you the Valley", as he discusses the lone hold outs to his attempt to control all the land in Logasa. Ten years later, Stanwyck would star as the matriarch of the Barkley Family on "The Big Valley". Somehow I thought she might have looked older in the earlier picture; I guess all those bright gowns and fancy riding outfits have a way of bringing out one's youthful side.

As for my summary line above, that's Lee Wilkison's appraisal of John Parrish (Glenn Ford), one of those hold outs mentioned earlier, shortly after Parrish uses his knowledge of military tactics to take out a number of Wilkison hands after they raid his ranch and torch his home. I liked the way the film explored his character, starting with the way he dealt with foreman Wade Matlock (Richard Jaeckel) in a calculated showdown. The set up for the ambush was also a clever maneuver, diametrically opposed to the strategy of rushing the bad guys head on with both sides fighting it out to the last man standing. For that, Parrish also had something to say - "Never meet the enemy on his terms".

"The Violent Men" is a good title for this film, and was probably at the head of it's class in the mid 1950's, though by today's standards doesn't come close to the blood letting one will find in a "Tombstone" or "Open Range", where the bullets exact a nasty savagery. But it's shaped by fine performances from the principals, with a sub plot exploring infidelity that seemed almost ironic considering it was Stanwyck's character who was cheating.

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

positive
I have to start out by saying that the actresses and actor did a fine job for what they worked with. The problem in Dark Reality is you had a poor director who tried so hard to be innovative and evocative he ended up trashing up the film. From start to finish you can tell the film reel quality itself is low, but the poor lightning and shaky camera only hurt it further by obscuring what is going on. The sound is muffled and often times not understandable. I'm sure Huston (the director) would argue this was to induce a state of panic in the audience, but he had more than ample material in which to do it. Having to result to camera and lighting the way he did was a sign of over the top syndrome.

The story is good. A basic sadistic female kidnapper story that avoids cliché by keeping the girl's in a state of despair the whole time for good reason. Billy Bob from Silence of the Lambs treated his victims better than Netwon. The biggest problem with the story is that dead people constantly harass the lead character in her mind, and by the second time they showed up I was fast forwarding as this was attempting to destroy the only decent part of the film.

In the end, the way the director pieced it together showing random blurry things and constant barely viewable scenes (not because of horror, because of the lighting, angles, and camera) ultimately destroyed this film. Huston was obviously trying too hard and if anything it resembled a bad film school project. If you want to see a decent story then it's all right, but be warned the film quality is enough for most to turn it off.

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

negative
I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated "Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land)." An African explorer  played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me  travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.

It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object  it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of those movies you find when you stay up too late and only have basic cable. It's hard to believe this movie was made in '95, considering it looks like something out of the late 80s. Plucky youngsters with varied home problems face a demented ice cream man who's on a mission to make the best flavor ever: Soylent Cream!!! 

This movie is extremely demented and is only scary in how creepy and absolutely, ridiculously gross it is. Actually, the really scary thing about this movie is the nature of the problems these kids face at home. The fact that these kids have no escape from their silent suburban sufferings makes any random loony loose in the neighborhood seem like a walk in the park.

The most laughable part of this movie is the fact that the stereotypical "fat kid" is so obviously a slim pre-teen with a mountain of padding under his baggy sweatshirts. I guess that either a) they hadn't invented/ couldn't afford a fat suit, b) the casting director was too lazy to find a pudgy child star or c) we are honestly supposed to believe that this child is starving and has an enormously distended belly. 

So if you're up at 2 am and need something ridiculous and disgusting to rip on with your intoxicated friends, go ahead and take a look. Personally, I'd rather be sleeping.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I thought that this movie was going to be totally lame based on the advertisements that I saw in theaters. When my sister borrowed from a friend I decided to watch it because it was summer and there was nothing else to do. . .needless to say ten minutes in the movie and I loved it. Amanda was a great actor in the movie, her comedic timing was perfect. The guy who played Duke was hot, plain and simple. My favorite scene was definitely when Amanda walks by the gardener and a fellow student who is suspicious of her and she is talking to her mom about dresses--as she is pretending to be a guy! I re-watched this part over and over... to make a long story short, the movie I thought was going to be lame--I now own it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

"Kicked in the Head" is all about the Corrigan character, a twenty something man on a quest to find himself, and his involvements with a handful of quirky characters. This thin and ambiguous story, which was written by Corrigan, has a make-it-up-as-you-go feel and a screenplay which smells like an uninspired low budget indie. In spite of that and some annoying Hindenburg scene interjections, the film has an off beat, quirky kind of charm which may appeal, in some small way, to people with a similar sense of humor. Not for everyone, not for most, but maybe fun for some. (D+)
Hong Kong, the 1920s. A young man from poor beginnings dreams of being a hero, and spends most of his time training and learning about kung fu and bodybuilding, much against his father's will. He helps a servant girl escape from a ruthless businessman, whose goons then come after them, and terrorizes the young man's uncle's noodle restaurant. The uncle turns out to be an old, reformed Triad assassin, who now helps the young guy become proficient in martial arts. It's all-out Karate Kid style with "wash the wok" instead of "wax on, wax off". The kung fu villain is the ruthless businessman's son, who has a trademark scorpion style that looks cool although it is quite silly and surely completely unrealistic.

But the story, which develops over time, has an epic feel, good characterization, great kung fu and is generally very entertaining. The young hero is very sympathetic and provides a good protagonist to root for. The romance dimension remains undeveloped, though, which is a bit disappointing. Otherwise a great movie.

My rating: 8 out of 10.

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

positive
This is one of my favourite books and I remember watching this series and loving it immensely. Sadly I have never seen it repeated or been able to get on DVD, but it made such an impact I have never forgotten it.

The lead characters were perfect for the roles, especially the lovely Bryan Brown and although the scenes in Australia were not entirely in keeping with the book at least they were there, unlike the film version with Virginia McKenna which missed that part out altogether.

I agree that Gordon Jackson's character of Strachan is entirely different from the book but he is still excellent. For your information "MOLEY75" "Strawn" is the gaelic pronunciation of "Strachan".
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.

What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.

It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.

This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.

Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.

Enough said.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.

What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.

The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.

I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!
Write a positive movie review.

If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film "LA PIANISTE" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement, perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede Jellinek's novel "LA PIANISTE" (on which the film was based) is twice as "repulsive", "disgusting", "deranged" and even more fascinating -- though there can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with the best piano playing/dubbing an actor could deliver?

In the novel as in the film, there are two big antagonists to the "heroine" Kohut: her own mother (wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages racist/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional repression, and, let's say, übermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today without the danger of a mental breakdown.

"La Pianiste" also deals with a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?) the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways.

It must be mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film, forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film: unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, "horrendous" feelings painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism, masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human.

I thought "La Pianiste" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, "Someone To Watch Over Me", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.

Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.
I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something. 

I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.

It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I just finished watching this movie and am disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy it a bit. It is so slow Slow and uninteresting. This kid from Harry Potter plays a shy teenager with an rude mother, and then one day the rude mother tells the kid to find a job so that they could accommodate an old guy apparently having no place to live has started to live with his family and therefore the kid goes to work for a old lady. And this old lady who is living all alone teaches him about girls, driving car and life! I couldn't get how an 18 year old guy enjoy spending time with an awful lady in her 80s. Sorry if my comments on this movie has bothered people who might have enjoyed it, I could be wrong as I am not British and may not understand the social and their family structure and way of life. Mostly the movie is made for the British audience.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: That's how I was when I walked (staggered) out of this "film". I couldn't leave, because it was at a film festival and the cinema was full of people. I was stuck in the middle. Trapped.

The tiny fragment of original footage which attempted to bind this film together features some of the worst acting ever to grace the big screen. The daughter was a stand out performance - stand out in the bad sense.

Thge cinematography was hideous, consisting of disjointed framing and some of the oddest lighting I've witnessed.

As for the stock footage... well at first one...

Wait.

Why am I reviewing this film? Why do I acknowledge its existence? Please, don't watch it. Do something useful with two hours of your life and go watch some paint dry.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

As someone already said the Living Dead Dolls were cute and if they came out as a new series of Wicked little things I would buy one, or two. Well basically this film was dark, not in the scary sense but in that I cant see kinda way. And it was boring. Three females in a house, the youngest told not to go into the woods under any circumstances (well that didn't sink in) and it would have been better if that advice had involved their death. And doesn't anyone do any cleaning or whitewashing or something, you would think a lot of coughing would ensue. A sexy young mum where you waste your time trying to figure her age (by my calculations 34 or 36.) And it looked like it had been longer than 20 years since someone had lived there so what was with the fathers young adult photos on much older album? I am so tired of clichés that is just lazy writing, and here they come in thick and fast. Teens getting stoned and drunk in car and well you know where that leads....death and apparent deafness too as Tim seems oblivious to his friends scream. I mean I have pushed many a car where the instructing driver did not scream and I heard them. Cliché weird man in the woods who no one believes. Plumber who has lived in them there parts for years and this is his first experience with said children, so that driving along he avoids pickaxe wielding youngster in dead of night... run him over you idiot! Cliché... roaming about in woods without a clue about where you are going, armed with knowledge that pick-axe wielding kids (yes them again) are out and about. Senseless scene the brutalising of pig... why do so many directors see no problem with animal mutilation and slaughter? I would have much rather seen the kiddies run up and bit people on the thighs than this. Zombies don't appear to have that much energy in other films.The villain well how ineffectual was he? His big part was in the shop.. tramping in and demanding to be served first. What a none eventful man he was. Why not kill him earlier, before the family got there and avoid the movie being made, or remake it differently. I give my marks to the house, the woods and the little Goth dollies I want one!
What's an example of a movie review?

I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.

This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.

It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.

SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.

The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed "Oneshoe McGroo." Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.

Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.

The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.

The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.

Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Did we all see the same movie??? I can't believe the raves some of the others are giving this really awful bio which, believe or not, was authorized by Shirley Temple herself, based on her book CHILD STAR. Gives me the feeling that some are awfully easy to please.

First of all, ASHLEY ROSE ORR, whatever her modest talents are, in no way, shape or form even resembles Shirley Temple enough to be cast as her in this sort of straightforward biography of the world's most famous child star. She gives no indication of why or how this child was so revered except for trying her hardest to do a Shirley impersonation which never clicks on any level. None whatsoever.

And that is the major handicap of the whole piece. But as if that isn't bad enough, any drama inherent in Shirley's story of her climb to almost overnight stardom has been completely white-washed with insipid writing peppered with occasional song and dance moments that don't even approximate what Shirley did (as for example, "The Codfish Ball" with Buddy Ebsen which was probably the high point of Shirley's choreographed dance routines).

Simply putting a girl in a polka dot dress doesn't make her Shirley Temple. None of Shirley's own brand of charm, warmth and appeal is even remotely suggested. All we see on display is a pale imitation of the original proving, once and for all, that there was only one Shirley Temple.

It's worthless to write anything further about this mess. None of the others are more than ordinary in lifeless roles. My advice for Shirley's fans is to read her book--or better still--watch her movies.

This is the pits.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A genius. My genius. I remember the exact second in 1994. I was sat in a pub in Shropshire, England. I recall the exact seat. "Bill Hicks dies of cancer" said the headline in the NME. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Buy this DVD. If you don't find something in it one way or the other I'll be astonished.

RIP Bill, I wish so much you were still here.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!!