cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.

Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this. 

The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts. 

The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now. 

The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all about metal.

Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day.

The story doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll! The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here).

Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a true metal dude!

'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie!

10/10
Determine the sentiment:

Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.

This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.

This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

With its ww2 timing, falling in and out of love, and easy on the eye Kira, this is re-Atonement. 

This a relationship story with focused main characters working out the the balance between first and fast love in the home front of WW2. Poet Dylan Thomas philanders his way between wife and ex in dark and smoky Blitz London and later in windy wales. 

Vera's ex and next spark off each other as the poet and soldier become a sideline while the girls bond and share. An easy watch that works well in the era bouncing along with just a few dips in pace. Would work well with French subtitles but then I may have been to too many art house movies lately.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This must have been one of Chaplin's most ambitious projects; he throws in virtually everything, from visual gags and blackout comedy sketches to social relevance, romance, even some violence. The mixture is challenging and intriguing, and the film has many entertaining and clever sequences (like the one where Chaplin and four other guys try to avoid finding a coin that will order their self-sacrifice), but the ingredients don't always click together, and the mix (and tone) seem kind of disharmonious. As for the famous final speech, though undeniably honest, it also seems a bit naive today, with its allusions to "a better world where man will overcome his hate and brutality, and his soul will fly". Great perfornmances by Jack Oakie and the beautiful Paulette Goddard. (***)
I caught this movie on local t.v. at about 4:30 a.m. I didn't have expectations for it but after the opening credits I knew I was into something good.

There are situations that are left for your interpretation to "find out" what really happened so your attention is a key factor.

The whole psychological thriller situation deals a lot with character development and the way things are executed by the main character.

Your sub-conscience also plays an important part because through a series of events and dialogs you will be able to make a correct interpretation and generate an opinion.

The technical aspects are very good. Really good in fact. Kelly Overtone is extremely sexy and she's candy for the eye although she's most of the time in her white clothes.

The fear factor is almost inexistent but there's plenty of mystery and tension to dig from.

I would recommend it for those who enjoy supernatural and psychological thrillers.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Isabelle Huppert portrays a talented female piano teacher who is staid, unfriendly and distant in public, and bitter towards her students. Privately, she seethes with violence and frustration, and her sexual life is solitary and perverse. She lives with her overbearing mother, who obsessively drives her to become noticed (and so advance in life) as a talented pianist. The key to the characters of both mother and daughter is 'obsession.' These characters cannot change their impulses anymore than a rabbit caught in headlights can avoid death.

The piano teacher meets a young, attractive, talented pianist who from the beginning is attracted to her. They start a relationship in the most unconventional way, but from the outset she makes perverse and violent terms that he must perform on her, which sickens him enough to want to terminate the relationship before it has really begun.

The film ties itself to the female lead. Isabelle Huppert amazes with a brutal, completely convincing performance as the piano teacher. She cleverly shows a woman who is drawn to beauty and perversion, but her violence is fed by her perverted impulses. As a film that is so character driven, you know it would not work half as well, had she acted poorly.

This is powerful, intelligently acted, and intelligently and sensitively adapted from the novel. The camera work also suits the film. There are what I can only think to call, framing shots where the director holds a scene and forces the eye to dart about. This is done extremely effectively against a blank bathroom wall, and is a further testament to the director's mastery.

Expect to be disturbed and sickened by this film. But, be brave - have the guts to go and see it. This is a very private look into essentially one person's life, but do not expect to be entertained in the Hollywood sense....there are no car chases in this film!
What's an example of a movie review?

A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called "Gaydar". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...

Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all.
Young couple on the road, minding their own business and having casual sex in their car during broad daylight. Yet, suddenly, they're being menaced and terrorized by a deranged psychopath in an old and rusty pick-up truck. Hmm, where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah, now I remember, we've seen this a THOUSAND times before already, and approximately nine hundred and ninety-nine of the other cases were much better than "Rest Stop"! This weak and pitiable new movie is insulting even to the intellect of the most undemanding horror fans, as it doesn't feature a single original twist or memorable gimmick. It's very sadistic and nasty, but every teenkill-slasher flick is sadistic and nasty nowadays, so that's no real surprise anymore, neither. The absolute main problem with this production is the incredibly large amount of dumb plot holes and meaningless sub plots. Writer/director John Shiban damn well realized that the ultra-thin basic storyline nearly wasn't enough to fill a whole movie with, and thus he stuffs up his film like a Thanksgiving turkey with imbecile and nonsensical padding material. Nicole's boyfriend vanishes at an abandoned and filthy rest stop in California. Killing off her character right away wouldn't result in a very long movie and thus she subsequently encounters a motor home family of freaks, suffers from visions (?) in which she talks to the deranged killer's previous victims and she has deeply emotional (and boring) conversations with a police officer who just won't die even though a truck ran over him...twice! The dumb sub plots never lead anywhere and they're definitely the most pathetic and desperate attempts to stretch a movie's length I've ever seen. Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable. Jaimie Alexander's character Nicole is an annoying and brainless girl, and you won't really care whether she'll survive the ordeal or not. Her boyfriend Jesse as well as the cop are both whining losers and their brutal deaths still weren't painful enough, if you ask me. I counted exactly three sequences, all including torture and gratuitous mutilation, that were gory and exciting enough to bring a sadist smile on my face. That's still way too few for a nowadays horror movie. Basically, "Rest Stop" is simply a miserable attempt to cash in on the success of such films like "Wolf Creek" and "Hostel", but you're better off watching the originals. This was the first film of the new production company called 'Raw Feed'. They're promoting themselves as the new name in great horror, but they'll have to come up with something much better than "Rest Stop" if they want us to believe that.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I haven't seen every single movie that Burt Reynolds has ever made, but this one (which I've just finished watching, for the third time) may very well be his best! It suffers only from some slow stretches; Burt perhaps tried to make it more "arty" than it should have been. On the other hand, he managed to avoid many of the usual cliches in the presentation of the "tough cop" role he plays (notice, for example, the scene in which he attempts to kiss Rachel Ward for the first time, or the fear he expresses just before the final showdown with the indestructible Henry Silva). In fact, Silva and those two ninja assassins are three of the most memorable villains of cop thrillers of the 80s. The film also has some offbeat touches, a surprising amount of humor, a brutal and gripping fistfight and many well-directed shots. (***)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In the mid 1800s, Irishman Dennis Hopper (as Daniel Morgan) emigrates to Australia, seeking a share of the continent's gold. Instead, Mr. Hopper finds himself branded, and thrown in a torturous prison; there, he is gang-raped. Upon release, Hopper hooks up with aborigine David Gulpilil (as Billy), with whom he seeks revenge upon sadistic Bill Hunter (as Sergeant Smith), Jack Thompson (as Detective Mainwaring), and others. Eventually, vengeance becomes heroism; Hopper is admired and assisted by the common people, and hunted by corrupt and powerful authorities. Hopper's "scarcely human" performance certainly fits the disjointed feel of the film. Mr. Gulpilil heads up a strong supporting cast. The personnel involved in "Mad Dog Morgan" make it not only worth a look, but also a huge disappointment. 

*** Mad Dog Morgan (1976) Philippe Mora ~ Dennis Hopper, David Gulpilil, Bill Hunter

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I work at the video store that rents this video in Lexington and I must say...it should have never been made. I even know some of the people who worked on it who regret doing so. Bad effects, horrid acting, bad script especially. I swear the dialog wouldn't have passed for the original PSX Resident Evil; it's that bad. If you want to know how not to make a movie, watch this film to learn a thing or two. If not, don't waste your time. And even the director know it sucks because he keeps coming in to try to get us to upsale the movie. No sir. I've watched two-thirds of the horror section and this rates even lower than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Even Ed Eood would have said, "Nope. That's too stupid even for me."
This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.

First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.

As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.

The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.

I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.

It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.

I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

First off... I have to say acting isn't very good. Miranda Cosgrove is the main character but is not such a good actress quite frankly. Spencer, her brother is a way much better actor. Spencer is easily my favorite character because he probably is the only one that knows how to act. Carly on the other hand tries to act her heart out but... sorry, it just isn't good. Sam doesn't even get credit, I mean come on... ICARLY... pretty self centered eh? Freddy isn't bad, I don't have a comment. I must add that Carly and her puppet Sam change their attitude whenever they go to film a web cast, they go shouting out all their lines.It's sorta bad influence in a way because Carly has a web show and if kids will copy this, they might be giving their own information and that not pretty safe.

The only nice things is that it has SOME funny parts of the show which makes it entertaining. At least this show isn't boring, it has nice plots, pretty strong. Many kids will like this because they don't look for flaws.

Overall this is a bad show but it's not boring.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Where do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the cliché scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a cliché)

Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.

Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.

The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.

The film is a near miss.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
Determine the sentiment:

One of the best TV shows out there, if not the best one. Why? Simple: it has guts to show us real life in prison, without any clichés and predictable twists. This is not Prison Break or any other show, actually comparing to Oz the show Sopranos look like story for children's. Profanity, cursing, shots of explicit violence and using drugs, disgusting scenes of male sexual organs and rapes... all this and more in Oz. But this is not the best part of Oz; the characters are the strongest point of this show; they're all excellent and not annoying, despite the fact we are looking at brutal criminals. The actors are excellent, my favorite are the actors who are playing Ryan O'Reilly and Tobias Beecher, because they're so unique and changing their behavior completely. And most of all... the don't have no remorse for their actions. Overall... Oz is amazing show, the best one out there. Forget about CSI and shows about stupid doctors... this is the deal... OZ!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

There is no reason to watch this film.

Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.

"Repeat?" 

"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie." 

"The whole movie?" 

"Yes, the whole movie." 

Etc. 

In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.

As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.

I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.

The opening credits were nice.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: yeesh,talk about craptastic.this thing is brutal.horrible voice dubbing,even more horrible acting and no discernible plot.apparently there are some great chase scenes,but the problem is,you have to get to that point first,and i just couldn't.the 20 or so minutes i endured felt more like a root canal than a movie.i suppose i could have fast forwarded it,and i recommend you do the same,unless you have very extreme pain tolerance or your a masochist.i don't fall into either category.i still have a migraine from this thing so i'm about to perform some dental surgery without anesthetic just relive the migraine.bottom line,horrendous. 0/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

1) Bad acting.

2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.

3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.

4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)

5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*

6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.
BIG FAT LIAR, in my opinion, is an absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it. When Jason (Frankie Muniz - "MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE") and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes - "ALL THAT") played those tricks on Marty (Paul Giamatti - DOCTOR DOLITTLE), I really smiled and felt good. That's what I liked most about this movie. As a matter of fact, everything that happened after Jason's essay erroneously ended up in Marty's hands was hilarious. I especially loved Jaleel White's cameo. When I first saw him, I couldn't be certain, but, when I asked my mother if it was him, she said, "Of course!" Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "Like I said earlier, there is a moral to this story, and that moral is, always tell the truth." Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan of Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, or Paul Giamatti, I highly recommend this absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!

I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

wow! i just have to say this show is super cool! i fell in love with the show from the beginning! the idea of the show is very original and very soothing! it's also a pleasure to watch the performance the two lovely leading ladies give, Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel! they're simply wonderful! i'm especially a big admirer of Lauren Graham! she's not just a pretty face, she's a "monster" of an actress as well! i'm not saying that Alexis isn't a wonderful actress as well... i just happen to like Lauren better! anyway it's a real delight seeing them on screen, "sparing" with words! in the words of the immortal Jim Carrey "B-E-A-UTIFUL!"
The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.

One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This Fox spectacle was a big hit when released in 1954. Sumptiously produced, with great music and sets, intriguing cast, it moves slowly, but interestingly. Edmund Purdom is strikingly handsome as an Egyptian who becomes a renowned doctor, juggling three stunning women: a handmaiden Jean Simmons who passively adores him, temptress Bella Darvi who eludes him, and a pharoah's sister Gene Tieney who wants him as HER pharoah. The movie's popularity has not waned, since being re-shown on AMC (preferably in widescreen). Purdom is particulary great, his character apparently striking out with the women, and ending up never married and a "thinker." Darvi is amazing and tantalizing in her femme fatale role. Victor Mature, Michael Wilding, Peter Ustinov co-star. Check it out.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This horrible action  sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I rarely write reviews but this film simply demands more attention than it gets as it contains the most hysterical kidnapping gone comically wrong sequence ever filmed.

I have only seen this once and found it to be the funniest film I had ever had the privilege to watch. I laughed from beginning to end. It is such a shame it is not out on DVD or video.

You can only compare its cinematography with that of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or Promise her Anything. Only this storyline isn't nearly as complex as Mad World.

I hope in the near future this film is released as it would be a shame to lose such a comedy gem amongst the dregs we have nowadays.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah!
My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.

Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Smartly written, well acted, intense and suspenseful. This show lives in the real world, not as fantastical as is "24",(and I am a huge fan of 24,incidentally). It has believable characters and in many ways is much smarter than most in this genre. It tries to present both sides of Islam. So far, I have watched the first 4 episodes and find the story to be more evenly balanced. The terrorists are more complex and not one dimensional. And as a result of that balance, the terrorists become more frightening than the typical villains being portrayed in film and on television. Last but not least, the hero is truly heroic without being a cartoon. I recommend this show for anyone who is a fan of 24 and the like.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.
Determine the sentiment:

I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.

I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.

I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.

Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.

I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.

On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.
Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.

Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.

You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.

As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.

There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned "Troubled Production" and it shows.

At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.

It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.

I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.

Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Not one of Monogram's better(not trying to be amusing here either)Chan entries. The Shanghai Cobra has a lot going for it, but, in the end, is just way too confusing and cluttered to be overly satisfying. The film opens with a murderer named the Shanghai Cobra having already struck twice and now is about in a scene at a diner in some way. We have a guy, a girl, and another guy having some implied connection when one guy dies in the streets. Yes, I am simplifying things here for the sake of brevity, for this really is at the core of the problems with this film - it has too much going on without any real, fulfilling explanation. I haven't even gone into the diner cook who has some involvement and a juke box that talks to you and has a screen and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that! All this is in the first five minutes or so. Then Chan enters film working for the government and flying out to help a friend. He also has right to check a bank's store of radium and is looking for a man wrapped in bandages that he helped arrest in Shanghai many years earlier. I found the plot very involved as stated earlier. Toler is back as Chan. He is ever affable. Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland are back too. Both do good jobs and are quite amusing. But the convoluted plot just didn't convince me, and much of the film was watched with a weird, questioning glance. This isn't a bad movie not just a very interesting one except for the most devoted of Chan fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What a clunker!

It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.

Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.

Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!

As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.

Major raspberries.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I enjoyed the prequels, and found the relationship between Tucker and Chan previously hilarious. RH3, however, was a re-hash of the first two without the charm or humor. I think I may have laughed once - and it was during the NGs. Tucker was exceedingly annoying in this film, and his character didn't seem to have any purpose other than to bungle everything up in the most irritating way possible. Chan is always likable, but he seemed tired in this film. I was able to predict EVERYTHING - who the villain was, who the girl was, (SPOILER ALERT) who the good-guy-turned-bad-guy was, etc. I hope to see more movies from Tucker and Chan in their separate endeavors, but not in any more Rush Hour sequels. It's just too tired. I recommend a rental, but not a purchase.

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

negative
Holden and Jones SIZZLE in this movie, but not in the way we think of sizzling today -- it's very subtle and under the surface -- yet palpable. Jennifer Jones, in particular, is SO SEXUALLY HOT in this film (much more than a caricature like Monroe EVER was) because she creates a real woman -- with ALL facets of womanhood: She's intelligent, intuitive, graceful. She's desiring AND desirable. 

There's a scene on that famous hill, where she's lying down in the grass, looking up at Holden, and the expression in her eyes is X-rated, yet in the context of the scene and character, in makes complete sense. You don't need to have it all said in the dialogue -- spelled-out like the crude obviousness in most modern films. It's all there in her eyes -- sexy yet elegant. What a stunning, under-rated actress she was. (I saw her MADAME BOVARY for the first time recently and was equally blown away.) I'll take her over Bergman, Davis, or the two Hepburns any day.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This was the typical women prison movie. I thought the women were very sexy and the outfits were great. All the camera did was focus on the women and the women were always in provocative poses for the camera and they were always scantily dressed(which I loved). This is your basic prison/breakout movie of the 70's. All I can say about this film is that it's extremely cheesy, but the women are gorgeous and their butts are great!