cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
The final installment sees Sho Aikawa and Riki Takeuchi (looking cooler than ever in his reversible overcoat!) pitched against each other for one last battle, this time in the future. The plot owes a lot to Blade Runner, but done in Takashi Miike's low budget, frenetic, comic style. I did feel that it was the weakest of the three DOA films, and although the ending was still outrageous, it lacked the shock value of the previous two. Compared to the likes of Ichi the Killer and Visitor Q, DOA:Final is nowhere near as extreme, but is faithful to the other two films in the trilogy. That said, fans of the first two (and fans of Miike) will get a lot from this as it ties all three films together and gives a final explanation of the relationship between the two protagonists.

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

positive
If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was quite impressed with this movie as a child of eight or nine. The gangsters seemed very real and threatening to me, and I could see why people would have been afraid of someone like Dillinger. Seeing it as an adult, it seemed almost comical, owing to the overdone narration and jarring details like Thirties gangsters driving cars that looked like they were from the Fifties. There is a certain gritty, unglamorous reality to the way the criminals are portrayed, but the overall effect is more like a bad soap opera. The most memorable and most unintentionally funny bit that sticks with me is the scene where Ma Barker and her sons are shooting it out with the FBI and the sons are killed. The narrator says something like " Perhaps in that moment, for the only time in her life, Ma Barker became a real mother". This is meant to be a moment of great tragedy and pathos, as Ma finally realizes how she's destroyed her family out of her own greed, but instead, it provokes laughter. A very odd film that is rarely shown anywhere these days. Gangster movie buffs might enjoy it, but more as a curiosity than a real movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Duke is a very silly film--a dog becoming a duke! But it's a very fun movie. It has some of those corny pranks that many kids movies have, but (thankfully!) no bodily function jokes, as so many animal movies feel compelled to have! Mostly, it's just dogs being dogs and people being. . . well, people. The 'good guys' are likeable and appealing. The 'bad guys' are ridiculous, and of course, the pun of many jokes. But there is something dignified about this movie, for even though it is silly, it's not out for every cheap laugh like "Home Alone" and others.

Crocket, Simon and Copper do an excellent job playing Black and Tan Coonhound "Hubert" who becomes the Duke after his beloved owner, a real Duke, dies. For the most part, they just act like dogs, no 'talking,' or human-like emotions and attitudes. However, they do stereotype poodles, and Hubert does fall for her, just because she's a poodle. Come on! These are dogs--they have a different view of beauty!!!

Overall, charming, fun and enjoyable.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.

I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.

The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy. 

I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.

I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.

I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.
Determine the sentiment:

Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art.

As with any documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer, the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product sold.

If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). "It is all about image" against content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way. Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is easier.

There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across the ocean agree that a few people are "levelling" the taste of wines to maximize the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the "grey masses". Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the ocean.

As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste; difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice - and not just vacuum-packed "more of the same". Standardization sells easily and a lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one.

On this, I am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy "sante".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in "kangaroo" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Running Out of Time is probably as close to a perfect film as you're ever likely to see out of Hong Kong. All the elements click: a terrific script (by French writers Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud) that even manages to subvert the odd cliché, reliably imaginative direction by Johnnie To, and excellent central performances by Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan, the latter displaying his great comic timing to wonderful effect without ever crossing the line into parody (especially in his exasperated reactions to his superior's abysmal negotiating skills). The supporting cast is fine too, with Yo Yo Mung making a strong impression in a tiny role, and even the often histrionic Waise Lee (looking remarkably, and very aptly, like a bald Andy Lau) reining it in to good effect. It's best not to know too much about the plot going in beyond the basic set-up  with only a few weeks to live, Lau engages in a criminal game with Wan's cop with no easily apparent motive  and just sit back and enjoy the ride: it's certainly worth the fare. It also has one of the most perfect love stories in recent movies, and played in a mere three scenes (the second bus ride is one of the most magical moments of film-making I've seen in ages). There's also a fine score by Raymond Wong as well. The most fun playing cat and mouse at the movies in years.
Determine the sentiment:

The (DVD)movie "The Tempest", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play "The Tempest" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.

In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice. 

But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen. 

Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda. 

Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.
As a local performer, I thought that "Grease" showcased what Broadway producers are looking for and it highlighted a small bit of the acting population. Although my favorites did not win (but came in second), I enjoyed comparing myself to them and seeing what I liked and where I could improve as a performer.

They brought in Olivia Newton-John because she is the obvious link between the Broadway production and television audiences.

They sang songs from the movie ("Hopelessly Devoted," et al) because these songs will be included in the new production.

I agree with the earlier comment made that the B'Way cast looks so much older, but you must bear in mind that these are people who have been on Broadway and worked their tails off to be there. If the entire cast was green and fresh then I believe that would have compromised the casting process by which producers choose their talent.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Begotten.The magic.The Terror.The slight boredom.

That "Begotten" is for acquired tastes goes without saying,you don't just happen to watch it unless your friends are real art-house movie buffs.You must dig the weird,the macabre,the bizarre.You must dig cool flicks.And you must dig to find diamonds.

"Begotten" is one of the most visually dazzling and mystifying films ever known to man.The visual part is something to behold,something no one can prepare you for.But since the film is devoid of any type of dialogue,the visual part is pretty much the only part...."Begotten" is a visual film.The soundscapes created for the film are magical and groundbreaking but still....the sight of it....

God commits suicide in a particularly gory scene then from his corpse rises Mother Earth who impregnates herself with God's semen and gives birth to Flesh on Bone,a retarded child.She then abandons him,and he gets tortured by heathen-like creatures.Mother comes back (to save him?) but she and her son get murdered by the horrible creatures.

The film is about the meaninglessness of life,and about the fact that we come to this planet to suffer and to die,and that when something dies something else is born etc.Nihilism.

The film's no.1 quality is of course the visuals,the setting,those haunting images,this other-worldly quality....After you're done watching,you feel like an alien.It's THAT mesmerizing.

When people say it should last 30' instead of 70' they're right.No they're not,it could last 40'.It's just that everything happens to such a slow pace.In fact,the plot summary I provided is all that happens in the film,like no kidding.Still,it's....I don't know....Glorious... 

...Like a flame burning away the darkness...
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.

I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the cliché of "character uses home video machine!" was used to very bad effect.

Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.
This has been one of the best vampire movies that I have seen in a long time. It was very seductive and alluring, I liked that it did not have the usual gore and carnage that comes along with most vampire movies. The music was excellent. It would be great if there was a sequel.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I am NOT one to like those Anime Cartoons (eg.Pokemon,Dragonball Z,Naruto), But Zatch Bell is Different in my opinion.Zatch Bell is more Exciting, has better characters, and doesn't focus so much on a sort of weapon or Mamodo as much as the episodes i've seen,Such as it The Episodes "Big Brother Kanchome", "Zatch vs. Kiyo".Zatch Bell Really focuses on the Life of The Strange Zatch,The Smart Kiyo,The Clueless Suzy,and the WeIrD Ponygon.Zatch Bell is probably my Fav Cartoon for now,but I encourage others to watch 1 Episode of it, you'll most likely will like it!

-Robbie H. (aka Vectorman)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.

But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic: 

- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one? 

- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.

- "Aim high". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.

- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.

- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.

- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.

- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not "explode suddenly".

The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.
Write a positive movie review.

This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the "Spirit of St. Louis".
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Just had the misfortune to see this truly awful film.

Think of that scene in Magnolia at the end with the slow pan in on that woman. Now, remove the pan, add breathing and unshaven men to the mix, and you have what the entire 2 and a half hours of Humanity was

The Inspector is a true dolt, not even a dolt, just a dim witted, slow moving simpleton. How they ever solved a crime is beyond me.

Obligatory sex scenes are awful, and gratitious.

Eventual villain of the piece (he raped and killed an 11 year old girl) is signposted very early and no surprise unless your are similarly dimwitted.

Uninspiring camera work.

The director was there saying that it is up to the audience to provide their own interpretation on the proceedings. I assume he also meant provide their own dialogue (there is bugger all - adding to its boredom level), inventive camera work (just static shots, totally stripping away the obvious beauty of the landscape the film is being shot in) and plot!

Truly awful.

0 out of 10.
I have watched Grand Champion all the way through at least twice now. I enjoyed the movie's story, the characters and the actors were not bad. It is refreshing to see a G rated movie. This is a feel good movie. The story is mostly from the view of the children. The interactions between the kids and the adults makes the story interesting. I recommend this movie if you are looking for a family film. If you liked the Little Rascals, you will probably enjoy this. I viewed this movie on cable. Either on Encore or Showtime family. This is not a movie that I would have gone to see at the theatre. But, I only go to the theatre for the effects of the big screen, so most comedies, romantic films, or dramas I do not go for big screen-I wait for TV/cable edition. Get your kids together, pop some popcorn and enjoy!

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.

The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.

This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.

None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle "Let That be Your Last Battlefield").

Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.

This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.

Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It takes a rare movie to get better each time you see it. O Brother does that and then some. The first time I saw it, I have to admit I had never seen anything like it. Then I wanted to see it again, and now I'm up to double digits with this great movie, the Coen brothers' finest movie they've ever done, with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy coming in a tight second and third for me.

George Clooney gives the performance of his career playing Ulysses Everett McGee, a fast-talking know-it-all escaped convict who really doesn't know that much at all. Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro are the perfect sidekicks for Clooney, particularly Nelson and his portrayal of Delmar, a loyal albeit uneducated fellow escapee. John Goodman is my favorite bit character as Big Dan, perfect. It reminds me of his part in Raising Arizona, he's just a perfect actor for this role. Coen brothers' favorites Holly Hunter and Charles Durning also provide memorable performances. 

Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their trade. It's not like they try to win Academy Awards every time they make a film, they just try and tell a story that they want to tell, and it's entertaining. It's a loose adaptation of the Odyssey, and I mean loose for all of you Homer fanatics. It's just great.

The most amazing part of this movie though is the coloring. I've watched how they got the dusty feel to the movie and I am still in awe just thinking about it. The coloring does become an important part of the movie. Great great movie.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a movie that will brighten up your day, for sure. Kermit the Frog, is just an ordinary frog in his swamp, when a talent agent stops by and tells him that Hollywood is looking for frogs to be in movie (lol). On the way, Kermit meets Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Gonzo and his chicken Camilla, Rowlf, The Electric Mayhem, Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker. But also trailing Kermit is the proprietor of a restaurant chain, Doc Hoppers French Fried Frog Legs. All things considered though, Kermit and the Muppets make it to Hollywood.

This movie is recommended for everyone, young and old.

It has some wonderful musical numbers, like "The Rainbow Connection, "I'm Going to go Back There Someday," and "Movin' Right Along." The Muppets also use many forms of transportation in this movie. Kermit rides a bike, Fozzie drives a Studebaker, and another car, Gonzo takes flight with a bundle of helium balloons, (which is one of my favorite moments by the way ;) ), and Kermit and the rest of the Muppets finally go the rest of the way by the Electric Mayhem's bus (Dr. Teeth, Floyd, Janice, Scooter, and Animal); who meet up with them in the desert after Fozzie's car breaks down.

Even some Sesame Street Muppets make cameo appearances (i.e. Big Bird is walking along on the road, on the way to NYC to break into public television). The end is also a very heartwarming moment. Every single Muppet created is in the final scene, along with a final "Rainbow Connection" reprise.

But those poor Muppets worked so hard on their movie set, then it all comes crashing down, and the camera explodes in a huge ball of sparks. You'd think everything is ruined and destroyed, But the rainbow comes shining through the roof at the end, and it all sums up the magic of this film, and you know everything will be all right.

Perfect 10/10. Watch it, and you'll be enchanted by the fun and sadness of this movie.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Just saw it at as closing film of Austin Film Festival. Going in, a had seen a few snippets of their act at Alamo Drafthouse, and thought the trailer was amusing but I wasn't expecting such an epic theme music and the use of tarot cards is genius in the title sequence. Watch out for cameos from Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins, and the dark lord himself (who has a fetish for KG). So much over-the-top fun and the songs are so catchy. The car chase was by far my favorite scene. I know this will earn cult status right away and win over some new Tenacious D fans, just like me. I hope this does well in the theaters. "Follow me, we are the shadows"
This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.

In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.

VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).

NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).

STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).

ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star." 

The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in. 

Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.

Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.

Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.

Michele Williams is also superb in her role.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.

This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more. 

I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.

Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

"Ashes of Time" was an audacious project but ended up being a pretentious movie. This film is a good example of how to tell a simple story in a complex manner. The plot of "Ashes of Time" is fairly simple and comes down to two words: "love triangle". Because of those "love triangles" crossing stories, jealousy, hate and love are the main dynamics displayed by the characters. The narrative part is seen through Ou-yang Feng's eyes (Leslie Cheung). Ou-yang Feng lives in the desert, where he acts as middleman to various swordsmen and becomes the tool of Destiny through which vengeance is achieved. Unfortunately "Ashes of Time" fails in telling these simple stories of love and hate. Wong Kar-wai lost himself driven by a desire to make each frame of the film a painting and an aesthetic experience. In fact beside the casting of beautiful actors (men and women) everything else is a failure in this movie. Dialogs are minimalists and not original at all. Picture's quality is very much unequal, the editing is one of the worst ever seen (at least by me) in the "swordplay" genre and finally the filming of the rare sword fight is very confusing and unappealing. Even the attempt of building artistic scenes is not always achieved: the so call erotic "women on a horse" scene is ridiculous, not erotic and useless. Wong Kar-wai wanted to deliver 100 minutes of pure aesthetic experience and forgot that a film is first about how a plot is told. By forgetting that he delivers an awkward movie that doesn't even fulfill its artistic objective.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This isn't a life-changing movie; it's not an epic, or anything like that. But it's entertaining, and it's fun. It's a film that the whole family can watch together, and at the moment there are precious few kid-suitable films that DON'T have a love story in them! It tells a good story in a lighthearted way without trying to dazzle the audience with over-the-top special effects, like lots of films these days are. It's got some fairly good acting in, and all the music that's been used fits in pretty well with the movie content. The acting is quite good too, the actors look comfortable and believable in their surroundings and most importantly the jokes are actually funny. I'd recommend it for people of all ages - it certainly made me laugh. :)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether this is an extraordinary film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"The Snow Queen" is based on the famous and very beautiful fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen, about a girl, Gerda, who goes on a dangerous journey to rescue her friend Kai from the clutches of the Snow Queen. This adaption attempts to capture that story's sense of adventure and luminously intricate imagery through lavish sets and production design, but fails on a number of counts.

Like so many Hallmark productions, the potential of the story is completely undercut by heavy-handed scripting and direction. The two actors playing Gerda and Kai are blandly pleasant but forgettable; Bridget Fonda as the Snow Queen looks the part but is otherwise miscast for the role. There's a notable lack of dramatic tension to this meandering three-hour miniseries. At least some of the pacing problems can be attributed to the addition of filler scenes that add very little to the original story, particularly in the opening hour that introduces the main characters.

That said, "The Snow Queen" would be just about ideal for pre-teens with a liking for fantasy and a bit of patience. It's great eye-candy without being scary, and the acting is pitched at the sort of pantomime over-the-top level that spells out the storyline in very, very bold text. Just make sure you read them Andersen's story too.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.

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

negative