cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4/10

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

negative
Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!!

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

negative
Seriously, Sci-Fi needs to stop making movies. They're all horrible. And this one had John Rhys-Davies in it, and he couldn't help the movie. Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito) captures the legendary goat eater of Mexico, the chupacabra, and brings it aboard a cruise ship captained by Captain Rudolf (John Rhys-Davies). The creature then escapes and starts killing crew and passengers. Captain Rudolf and the crew then go after the creature, guns ablazin'. But they can't stop it. So they call in the navy. They can't stop it either. Then the thing kills all 5 (or however many of them there are). Then the captain and his daughter along with some other guy, figure out how to kill it. Stay away from this movie. The chupacabra looks incredibly cheesy, the navy men shoot at the slightest movement,throw grenades on the ship, and the acting is horrible. 3/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.

They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...

I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last one.
So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!

Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.

4/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I would recommend this as the most successful attempt so far to make a movie on Soviet Afghan war. And it is very honest and responsible picture starting from small details of uniforms and weapons up to human relations, war routine and Central Asian landscapes. It's been shot in Tajikistan just after the the troop withdrawal which happened in 1989 not in 1985. The Italian star Mr. Placido was just perfect in the role of Major Bandura. Other characters looked also very natural especially always drunk club managing officer:-).The scenario seems a bit jammed in the end but it might be an impact of the Civil war in Tajikistan which had started right during the shooting of the film. All movie team had to escape sometimes even under fire. The last scene is purely "harakiri" type of behavior and reminded me the final phrase from one famous samurai movie - "We've won all battles but lost the war". It could be also a metaphor of USSR collapse - the great country allowing to shoot itself to the back by the small offended child.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was a 20 year old college student living with the folks when I first saw this, and I've never forgotten it. I'm a huge Joan Hackett fan, and this film was perfect for her remarkable talent. I'm so glad to see that so many other people have such a fond memory of seeing this. Naturally, it's not available on any media! It would be perfect to show on Lifetime, but because of its age, they won't. You never see anything there before the mid-eighties. I can still remember what made me watch it when it was first run: Rex Reed reviewed it in The New York Daily News, and he said that it was like a throwback to the great Hollywood films of the forties, and had it been made then, the Hackett and Grimes parts would have been played by Stanwyck and Crawford. Think about that! P.S. So sad that Joan Hackett left us so tragically young.

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

positive
I was laying in bed, flicking through the channels... and boy do I have channels... 500 of them. With over 70 movie channels, I probably watch a movie on cable, once or twice a month... DVD has spolied me.

Anyway, I'm flicking through and I come to this movie and because I see Natilie Portman, I take interest. 110 minutes later I am still interested. How could this be? When I first saw the previews to this movie in the theater I remember making fun of it. I never thought I'd watch it... nevermind like it.

The story is based on a book, and you can tell. The movie is very episodic, andit's not like the movie has a great plot, it just sucks you in. May-be its that performances that do it. I'm pretty sure in must have been.

This movie was good for no reason...

Peter's Movie Rating (out of 10): 7

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

positive
If you want to enjoy the money you would spend to rent this money, go buy a bag of ice and watch it melt. That's more entertaining than this movie. 

Bill Cowell, shame on you. 

Or if you wanna see this movie plot, go in a corn field, bring two of the most annoying little girls you can find, run around for a couple hours having the girls scream as loud as possible. Then send me the couple bucks you woulda spent.

I enjoyed the first Dark Harvest, after watching the sequel, I'm going to cry myself to sleep.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Thankyou for making such a wonderful escape . That's what I love about movies. I'm so impressed with the aireals , the way they were shot and the timing was so dynamically perfect with the music .being a dancer myself , and having been a part of many dance films choreography is usually chopped ,diced and sometimes not even to the beat....."Showgirls" the Movie . The relationship between the ladies was ever so present in the movement .

My favorite scene is the last one, when she is pulled over . I've seen the movie before, a different version ., and I disliked the husband more last time . I felt a little more sorry for him this time . It changes how I feel about the female love birds. Its all so magical .

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

positive
...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.

Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.

This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.

I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.

Not since 'The Man' w/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.

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

negative
Out of any category, this is one demented and over the edge film, even in todays standards. Filmed entirely in crap-o-rama, this film will blow your mind (and something else too!)

The amount of hilarious bad taste and sleaze is astonishing. The dialog is breathtakingly fast and campy. You'll either love or hate this film, but give it go. I've seen it 4 times and absolutely love it. Divine is in the quest for being the filthiest person alive, but so are her rivals too in this obscene and disgusting (but funny) and stylish little film. 

Divine was phenomenal, and "she" will always be missed greatly. Edith Massey does the unforgettable performance as the "egglady" and don't forget the energetic Mink Stole!

Über crazy s**t! 

Recommended also for you sick little puppies;

Female Trouble 

Desperate Living 

Polyester

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

positive
This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his "best" work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.

Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.

If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

John Leguizamo is a great comedian and storyteller. Every time this has been on HBO I've had to stop and watch it. John tells the story of how he grew up (probably some fact and fiction) and adds hilarious stories in the midst. If you like John's comedy I would have to say this is probably his comedy at his best.
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched this series on TV in 1990 and absolutely loved it (I was nine years old). I bought the first DVD box about six month ago and got the second a couple of days ago (thanks to my dear husband). Gosh...It was hard to get any sleep with all the thoughts in my head...what was gonna happen to Madeline and George etc. Slave issues and civil war has always fascinated me (a 25 year old Finn).I advise to read Slaves in the family by Edward Ball for those who want to take a peek in the past and try to understand what really happened.

I'm not sure if I want to see Heaven and Hell after so many people have told here that it wasn't really that good.
Write a positive movie review.

Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.

Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.

Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.

The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four.
Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.

His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.

Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.

In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".

The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.

I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".

It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.

If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.

There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life. CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for those who hear its message.
What's an example of a movie review?

** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fiancé. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.

The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.

This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance.
The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the "super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.

God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the "suck" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of "Alone in the Dark".

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

negative
Of course, going into it, one would expect it to be a typical, stupid T&A flick, and it is. But it really does have some fairly well thought out humorous moments. Given the era in which it was made, and the obvious exploitation aspect, it is still one of the better B comedies of the time.

While watching this movie, you will see quite obviously the inspiration for many of the scenes in "Revenge of The Nerds", and numerous other films of the same genre. Most of the acting is horrible, and WAY over the top, but that's exactly what I expect in a movie like this. What it lacks in the way of acting ability, it more than makes up for with its camp value and complete disregard for anything of merit.

The amazing thing about this movie, is that there was obviously some money that went into it. Films like this made today just don't have the same style. If you can turn your brain off, and turn your sense of humor up for an hour and a half, you will enjoy this flick. I dare anyone to not find at least SOMETHING in this movie that they think is funny, if not hilarious.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Although it might seem a bit bizarre to see a 32-year-old woman play the part of a 12-year-old, Mary Pickford soon makes you forget the incongruities and simply enjoy the fun.

Mary is a street kid in New York City, with her own lovable gang of mischief makers, whose attentions are engaged by the older William Haines (he was 25 at the time & just on the cusp of his own screen stardom.)

To give away too much of the plot would not be fair. Suffice it that Mary is great fun to watch & amply displays why she was Hollywood's first and most beloved super star. Production values are very good, with lots of extras making the NYC street scenes quite believable.
Write a positive movie review.

Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay  not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.

There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading
Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.

"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.

** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **

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

positive
Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the "plan-B-ending". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.

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

negative
Talk about your classics! Ernie Fossilus (the Foss from here on out) came up with a cute and creative trailer totally spoofing Star Wars. This gem is so jammed packed with tributes and gags I laugh every time! Not only that, when Star Wars did a re-issue with new special effects, Hardware Wars did the same! Talk about a spoof that just won't die! There's a reason George Lucas calls this his favorite parody. He was so impressed, he even hired the Foss to work on "Return of the Jedi" (Don't believe me, check his entry in IMDb!)

This has to be the first, and in my opinion, the best parody ever done. I think the Special Edition was a bit overdone, but on reflection, I think it's PERFECT for the modern day re-release of Star Wars, and goes to prove that sometimes, it's wrong to mess with perfection.

Yes, it's only 10 minutes, but it's well worth your time.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye! Well, maybe 15 for the DVD, but you'll be real happy you did.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.

That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but "hitting" it anyway, Ken Shamrock "acting", and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching "Slaughter Studios", are totally and completely gone from my mind now.

My Grade: F 

Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless 

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.

EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:

1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.

2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is. 

3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.



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

negative
The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Belonging to the subgenre of post-apocalyptic future films, it is a stylistic and very very intimate installment. The most noticed element of the film is its silence; no one speaks. I don't think Besson, despite what is evident in most of his later work, meant it as any kind of cool gimmick. I think what makes it so clever and so effective is the fact that with no other way of communicating, everyone has to read each other based on intuition and conveying of emotion, no matter how slight. Though I wasn't glued to the screen, upon reflection I see that it's a very touching and sensitive perspective on human nature. Its vehicle is the stylized sci-fi movie. Part of its reflection on the nature of the human world is that each of its humans is not necessarily played as a perfect human being: The hero, a lone drifter in the desolate new world, is taken in by an older recluse, who refuses to keep his part of an exchange of food between him and a husky, brutish character played by Jean Reno, and so Reno tries everything he can, predominantly using brute force, to get what he wants. So, the antagonist is right, though not a good person, and the protagonist and his sympathetic foil are both wrong, though they are both good people.

It's shot in a clear and crisp black and white, edited and captured in a low-key yet spry and small-scale approach, and its actors are very real. How can they not be? They, like their characters are left with the bare necessities of communication. This is one of the few truly good films that Luc Besson has written. His earlier work is almost always better than the fluff he churns out now.
Determine the sentiment:

How would you feel if you had only a few weeks left to live? This film helps you to know through the eyes of one guy who is faced with that situation. It is told with sympathy and without too much emotion. Some might feel it rather slow - but I think that adds to the realism of the film. Some might see it as a love story, but I think that is secondary to seeing his last days through his eyes. The loves of his life are part of the end of his life and give it more impact. Low key and gentle, the film rolls out the story much as life does. Without clichés and with unexpected events set against a backdrop of getting by. If you like your films gently emotionally realistic this may be for you.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I got this movie out a week after the death of Ichikawa Kon - I suppose if there is one way to mark the passing of a great director, its to raise a glass of wine to him while watching one of his greatest movies. Ichikawa had one of the finest careers in Japanese film, but as he never had a distinctive style or theme he often seems to be overlooked compared to his near contemporaries such as Ozu and Kurosawa (he was a little younger than them, but not by much). He is one of those directors who defies auteur theories - its likely that his wife (who wrote the screenplay for this and many other of his movies) was as much responsible for the quality of the movies as he was. But at his best, he was as good as any Japanese film maker at the time. In particular, he had great technical skills, allowing him to tell complex stories in an accessible manner. But in terms of theme, this movie could hardly be simpler - war is hell. No really, its seriously hell.

Fire on the Plain doesn't follow the normal war genre rules. There is no real beginning - we start as the wretched Tamura, who is a regular private (although it is implied he is more thoughtful and educated than most of the others - at one stage it is shown he understands English, but he clams up when the others ask him how he knows it) is ordered to hospital, as his unit is already in an appalling state. The soldiers are defeated and starving to death. They are no longer an army, just a rag bag group of refugees - hunted by the locals, and pretty much ignored by the Americans, who have bigger fish to fry. Hunger and despair is driving the soldiers to the edge and beyond of madness.

In typical Ichikawa style, its not all just grim - its oddly funny in parts (a very black humour of course).

The high points of this movie to me are the outstanding performances from the leads and the vivid photography. The characters, in all their humanity, but also their complete loss of humanity, are all too believable. This is that rare film - one which will refuse to erase itself from your head, even if you want to forget it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Sure, you get to see some boobies, but if that's all you're looking for in a film, you get more mileage from youtube. I just paid a dollar from redbox because I saw Val Kilmer's name. Bad move. Plot didn't thicken, dialogue was shoddy, characters undeveloped at best. Somebody said cinematography was alright but don't expect too much. This movie moved very slow and ended without grace. Blacklist. I spent much of the movie wondering if some event or color scheme of things was symbolic. I never actually rewound to figure it out because nothing was ever explained in the end. No twists. It also left many questions that as it turns out, I had no desire to hear answered. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.

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

negative
One of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.

I think many people pass up "Boogie Nights" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Symbolism galore, great tunes, this film crushed their "soon to be no more" target audience's expectations. These monkees and the naturally selected members of the group, were witnessing a subtle yet in your face, kiss goodbye to each other. The message rings true today, the cage you escape from and the bridge you want to jump off of, are the next generations own disappointments, there will always be new kids on the block replacing those who break free from the chains. The film can be frustrating at times, because the themes the film attacks are so blatantly apart of the American way of life, a thinking and reasoning person cannot help but stare at their own reflection in the scenes of Head, and question not only their personal motives for continuing the madness of everyday American life, but the motives of those who want it to continue for the sake of madness. The final scene, similar to Don Quixote's chivalric daring of the caged tiger to exit for battle, represents just how delusional and impossible most dreams are.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Id just like to say that the film was good and touching. The film explains to you the real meaning of being saved or born again and is very well set out. The acting was quite good but could do with some improvements. The story Board is catchy and when my church had youth service and we watched it,8 people gave there life to Christ. Id just like to say too anyone who is reading this, give your life to Christ and repent from your sin. PLease visit www.lifeofacristian.piczo.com Thank you Andrew

The word of God will not turn Void. So Get saved and repent from your sin!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named "luther". Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.

Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Little did I know that when I signed up the the "all pay channel" package with Direct TV that I would face a movie like this. It came on right after another movie we had been watching... and I was a teenager in 1981 so am not sure where I was at the time... but I missed this movie.

I also can't believe we left it on. It is kind-of funny as it takes you back in the time machine to the early 80s... but I think even then this would have been a painful movie. It was just... well... "too cute"! ET was "cute" in a way... but not obnoxiously cute... and stupid.

When I see a movie like this... I come on onto IMDb to see what others say. I am blown away that this thing was nominated! Wow... the movie industry has come a long way since the 80s! Oh well... it did show some old actors... btw that is the other thing I was surprised about... the lineup... not a bunch of no-names... but some real actors/actresses. Must have been in their drug days! Anyways... odd, interesting, bizarre, and makes one happy they grew up!
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!

For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.

Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw this movie with very low expectations. I didn't know a lot about it so I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it.

The story did an OK job of getting you curious about these ruins they travel to. The suspense continues when the Mayans show up and force them to stay at the ruins.

Then the movie turns from somewhat suspenseful to pointless. The amount of gore found in this movie did not balance out compared to whether it was truly necessary or used more for shock value.

The fact that they didn't make any attempt to fight the vines from hell. They had fire and didn't try to burn it nor did they try to cut it with a knife to see if they could destroy it or not. They quickly jumped into a victim role and their helpless attitude was not real. It reminded me of the old horror movies where the people just scream and yell and don't have half a brain to try to fight back.