cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
42/100. Often referred as "Tarzan with clothes on", but it's not at all in the same league as his far superior Tarzan series. Basically, The Jungle Jim series became a Tarzan replacement for Johnny Weismuller, after he started getting too out of shape for a loincloth. In Jungle Jim, he is fully clothed. It can't compare to the Tarzan series in any way, not in acting, screenplays or quality of production. It's pretty hokey stuff. This one is the first the best in the series, and that isn't saying much. Too much stock footage is used, and it is so obvious. The score is overdone, and the plot is lame and the production is so poor it makes it hard to watch at times.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch "King of the Hill" for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon "Futurama" because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film essentially contains all the elements of a great 70's exploitation film, except it was done in the late 80's for the direct to video market.

You have a young couple in love, but the whole world around them is involved either in crack dealing or gang violence. When the boyfriend goes to jail, the girlfriend ends up vulnerable to all the criminals, who are everyone in this movie except for the cops. First she gets hooked on crack by a dealer and then because he owes drug lord Jim Brown money, she becomes Brown's property. Then she's basically enslaved in a military style crack house that the movie is named for.

As if this isn't enough reason to see this movie, you also have Anthony Geary playing a seemingly conservative school guidance counselor, but he's really a major crack dealer. In a sleazy yet hilarious scene, he demands sexual favors from the heroine because she has no money for a fix. In an earlier scene it was established that he is her counselor. That scene and another where Jim Brown forces her to take a scalding hot shower because she stinks are hysterical. Lead actress Cheryl Kay was really good in this film. Tarantino, bring her back.

It's not surprising to me that someone mentioned in another review that Tarantino is a major fan of this. It has just the right blend of comedy, action, sex, romance, and yes a central message to stay away from drugs. Jim Brown's villainous turn here deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as another great 80's B villain, Wings Hauser in Vice Squad. Sometimes I think there should be a b movie Oscars where performances like this could be acknowledged. In the meantime let's hope that the modern straight to DVD filmmakers learn learn to use this same type of tongue in cheek humor.
I can only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.

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

negative
This "space snippet" was kind of dumb. I guess it was supposed to be a shocker unexpected ending, but IMHO it was just a huge letdown. Joseph Campanella and the rest of the earthbound actors do a great job in this one; their performances are not done justice with such a silly ending though. How this ending could ever have made it through any kind of review by the producers is beyond me. The other comment on here is not correct, the tongue in cheek vignettes only came in during the second season, this thing was supposed to be taken seriously! The producers and writers could have been a little more creative with the ending to do the rest of the episode justice.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, "have I missed something here?". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.

I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be? 

I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.

For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.

Needless dreck!

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

negative
Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) travels to Tokyo to investigate the mysterious disappearance of her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and gets caught up in the same mysterious curse that has killed so many people. With a group of others, she tries to solve and end the curse for good.

The Grudge 2 rehashes everything from the first one and it produces only a couple of scares. The first Grudge was an average movie at best. The premise was decent but the acting was wooden and some of the scenes were really ridiculous. The Grudge 2 is even more silly and less scary than the original. Also, Scary Movie 4 has made it nearly impossible to take these films seriously and I had trouble keeping a straight face during the "scary scenes" which should encourage laughter more than fear. How Takashi Shimizu messed up his own franchise is unexplainable yet he succeeded at creating a decent atmosphere. Unfortunately, he kept the film at a slow pace with a bunch of dull characters and lame scare tactics. Clearly, he did this movie for money and I'm glad it failed.

The screenplay was pretty bad, mainly because it made no sense and they didn't develop the characters at all. In the movie, there were three different stories going on and each of them were somehow related to "the grudge". The connections were weak and a bunch of people were killed without a real reason. They don't explain the rules of the curse very well and it ended up being a bit of blood bath because of everyone dying although the PG-13 rating kept things from getting interesting so even some of the death scenes were pretty lame. The dialog was weak and none of the characters were likable or developed well enough to truly care about.

The acting was on par with everything else and it was a lot worse compared to the first one. Amber Tamblyn was annoyingly wooden. She moved on screen very slowly and all of her emotions seemed fake. Sarah Michelle Gellar was okay although she just had a cameo. Jennifer Beals gave the best performance, she had a few good scenes and was kind of effective. Arielle Kebbel was okay, a little bland. The rest were either horrible or just too forgettable to mention. Overall, The Grudge 2 was a disappointing sequel. It lacked a lot of things and it's not worth watching. Rating 4/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. "When will this movie end?" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is "lean and mean" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.

It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.

I give this movie "1 (awful)". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of "the first degree of the seven fold ray", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.

In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by "A. Hall". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?

With it's disjointed scenes, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like "Psycho" or "North by Northwest".
I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic, starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days. Writer/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I bought this on VHS as "Terror Hospital", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary "Nurse Sherri"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the "Blood of Dracula's Castle" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I just watched that movie, and was pretty disappointed. I didn't expect much to begin with as the premise of the movie doesn't suggest greatness anyway. Sadly, it doesn't even manage to deliver just as stupid entertainment. The main problem is probably the acting. While I've seen far worse actors in far worse movies, the story would require some people to act out as violent maniacs, some others as people caught a in really stressing predicament, and they fail to deliver that. Although I watched the German release I watched with the original audio, so it's definitely not just bad voice-overs or anything like that. Added to that, the German DVD release seems to be cut, the killings are all pretty much left out, meaning that except for a few semi-gory scenes closer to the end the German release doesn't deliver as a movie for "gore-hounds", either. Can't comment on that for other releases of course. The plot has some stupid moments thrown in here and there and the beginning is just hilarious (ever heard of a demon visiting a psychiatrist?). Too bad the movie takes itself far too seriously, if it was filmed as a horror-comedy and changed a bit here and there accordingly it might have worked better. The ending is just a huge disappointment.

If you've got really nothing better to do and just can't stand the boredom anymore you might (and it's really a weak "might") consider this movie. If there's anything else available to watch or do: Pick that alternative.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...

Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).

The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.

The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of "backstory" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!

I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you...
In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a "creative writing" course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.

I'd give this movie 10/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!
Determine the sentiment:

People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.

Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.

I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I can't believe I watched this whole movie. Another "Ishtar" in that I kept waiting for it to get better, which never happened. The sound is terrible, going from too low to hear the conversations, to blaring sound in seconds. The plot is absolutely implausible, the acting is mediocre, although Keaton does his usual good job as a mental case, although being typecast in that role could certainly be considered a negative. The director knows absolutely nothing about hospitals, medications, science or anything of a technical nature. "Sociopath"???? I wonder how they came up with that diagnosis? There are so many errors, goofs and things wrong with this movie that if one were to list them all it would possibly set some kind of record. Demerol as a general anestetic? A motorcyclist on the freeway wearing a non DOT/Snell off-road helmet. San Francisco??? Paper walls move when tapped, helmets just appear out of thin air, guns point one direction but hit things in another, lighting appears and disappears and there is barely a scene in the move that doesn't contain some kind of error. My wife, who is an RN in an Oncology unit finally left the room before the end of the movie so upset over all the medical errors. I gave it a 2 only because of Keaton's acting, else it certainly would have gotten a 1.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).

*******Possible Spoilers********

The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.

I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.

I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.

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

negative
First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY "gappy". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.

Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.

The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.

I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.

Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself). 

As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.

Have a great day, Everyone!!!

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is a charming movie starring everyone's favorite cartoon chipmunks. In this feature we follow the band of rodents on an unforgettable balloon race around the world. Although there are lows, including an orphan penguin, all in all it's a great family film.
Even though this movie starts off with the usual: something goes wrong, spacecraft crashes, people are stranded etc. it still pulls off and introduces the viewer to some new ideas. Riddick is somewhat of a bad-ass convict and has modified his eyes so he is able to see in the dark which is a much sought after ability due to the situation the ship-crew and he gets in. The cutting in the movie is very good and emphasizes the mystique that shrouds around the anti-hero and male protagonist: "Riddick." The story in Pitch Black is, as already mentioned, to some extent very unoriginal and dissatisfied, but the clipping and cutting in the movie blended with some surprising elements which has been added to the story helps it to still support itself very well and one is afterward left behind with a hybrid feeling of satisfaction and hunger for more. Vin Diesel acts really well in the role as Riddick and even though his character is a hardcore, tough survivor he still takes morale decisions almost on the verge of good, but that does not mean his decisions do not turn in his favor at the very end... Why destroy an already perfect reputation? All in all this is a very good movie though not perfect. The story seems very unoriginal at the surface, but underneath it shines with enough originality to entertain. Some scenes has that wow factor while it as a whole is a bit better than average. It could maybe be described as a cult movie and it is definitely a recommendation for people who wants a spiced up sci-fi story blended with some minor psychological moments and an intriguing protagonist, namely Riddick.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his "Dan Band" perform their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Sleeper Cell attempts to swim both sides of the pool (terrorism/patriotic Muslim Americans), and it does neither very well.

I had put off watching this show for a very long time, because I had a feeling it would be too predictable, but after a year in my netflix queue, I finally moved it up to the front.

The show is about an undercover Muslim man working for the FBI in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist cell operating in the United States. The undercover agent in the show actually is a Muslim, so we see his conflict/resolution between his Patriotism and his Religious beliefs. Personally I would have rather watched a drama about a Muslin American family living in the United States, but it is doubtful that an America TV channel (cable or network) will ever produce anything that shows Muslims in a flattering light.

I am not a Muslim, but I have a lot of Muslim American Friends, and I can honestly say that none of them are terrorists and they all love America.

Sleeper Cell comes close to busting stereotypes of Muslims, but it also focuses on the worse Muslim stereotypes. In the first episode we see an "honor killing," which is a very poor portrayal of Islam, but in the 3rd episode we see a very respected moderate Muslim scholar teaching the viewer that the real Jihad is actually a personal struggle that is not meant to incite violence towards others.

If only the Moderate Muslim scholar had been the main character of the show.

Americans need to learn a lot more about Islam, Sleeper Cell helps a little bit, but it comes up far short of giving the America audience what it really needs to knows.

That said, the acting in this show is superb, and the drama is extremely engrossing. If only they had made this show about Islam in America without the terrorism, it would have been first rate.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.

The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.

I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a "rear projection screen," where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.

The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.
A sadly inferior precursor to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.

It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!
What's an example of a movie review?

Eve is an eye opener, because of the great sceneries and the tech-no music in the backgrounds, we hear. This movie shows a good aspect on the human body being God's creation and to considerate about it, viewers can earn better respect on the legendary story of Adam and Eve (either if it's true or just a fairy tale, depending on what we believe) from watching this movie. Actress/model Inger Ebeltoft's impersonation of Eve is so good, there's no good word to describe her performance, and I can't imagine having another actress being Eve. This movie to me, comes in really handy for the type of therapy of stress relief. We'd never fell so relax then before from watching this movie. This movie is a masterpiece, God supposedly wanted this movie to be made in the first place!

Mr. Razbin!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and "Elle" were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.

Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for "lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the "American West", which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.

In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.

Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end. 

Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing.
Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.

Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.

Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.

If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
this was pretty bad. pedestrian work or worse. i don't think it was homophobic, just really bad. if anything it was really amateurish, like when you're 14 and first discover curse words and skin mags.

The main point of this movie, the romance, falls really flat. I can't help but wonder if the writers ever had any serious relationships before this movie.

plotting and pacing are horrible, going nowhere at all. one minute we're watching these guys catch cheaters, then we're at a gay club, then we're at a date. out of nowhere the girl apparently likes comics, and then they sleep together. none of this feels real, like an elementary school production of Shakespeare if Hamlet was written by a frat boy.

the ending was some kind of creepy over the top revenge fantasy by a loser who got dumped by a girl. Unnecessary and actually kind of disturbing.

Still, you have to watch it. Why?

As others noted the director's commentary actually is hilarious - what kind of of professional talks about "banging" or "hooking up" with the actresses? dialogue sucked, relationships lacked chemistry. you will be on the floor laughing at this pretentious jackass.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1/2)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This is the story of a news investigator who hates his job - which prove why actors - even as weak as Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington - are on the big screen and your neighbors are not!

I'll say this though - the better moments show some basis for being really funny (not just wacky), to keep trying, maybe taking some classes, and using the time to keep learning how to make a good movie. ("Dude, Where's My Car" and the "Scary Movie" sequence have it all over this ... college attempt.)

The lighting wasn't; the production wasn't; and the script had moments (the conversation from space - very nice try unconvincingly executed). (This reminded me of "Dark Star" - which is about being "lost in space" - but this movie is just lost.)

The talent was the bartender (he said 'dog' so annoyingly that I knew he had to be acting... wasn't he? ... now THAT's acting!), the Mark Hammond guy, and Marty. I guess I gave the movie a point for each one of them... 3/10.

-LD

______________________________________________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.

Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.

This movie is certainly worth your looking at.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.
I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!

The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.

The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!

Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!

If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch/own/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t

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

negative