cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a positive movie review.

Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.

The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.

Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.

Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.

This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.

The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.

Dirty War is a must see!!!
this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Normally I don't bother wasting my time writing comments for junk like this that I forget almost as soon as I see it, but since I saw this movie just yesterday on one of the comcast Showtime channels (346, I think) I decided to make an exception.

Besides the fact that I enjoyed watching Carol Alt, I can't give any rational reason why I watched this movie through to the end. I'm always amazed that good-looking women are willing to appear in awful movies like this, but I suppose she thought this movie would lead to something better. I hope she was right, for her sake.

Otherwise, this is an all-too-typical straight-to-video laugh riot, or just a piece of garbage, depending on your point of view. While there are a few decent moments of action in this movie, they don't really connect well with the story, such as it is.

The setup, as I recall, involved Carol Alt as a depressed housewife who believes her husband, a cop, is cheating on her. There was also something about their child dying in an accident, and she blaming him for it, but before that storyline went anywhere she shot and killed him.

On the same fateful night, a wounded stranger comes to her door and she tends to him, and almost immediately her house is under siege by government stooges and mercenaries intent on capturing the stranger, who appears to have almost superhuman fighting skills.

This same kind of material has yielded decent entertainment plenty of times before, most notably in Matt Damon's The Bourne Identity, and could have done so this time as well but this particular movie was let down by poor production values and a lousy script.

This movie really falls apart at the end, when the mysterious stranger turns out to be a cyborg (!) who was programmed to be a policeman, and after discovering that Carol Alt killed her husband he tries to kill her! The movie wasn't particularly good up until this point, but the ending really ruins it by trying to turn a modest action-thriller into a lumpy Terminator/Robocop wannabe.

I also thought that the violence in the movie was a bit excessive at the end, with the demented cyborg gouging out poor Carol Alt's eye before it finally bit the dust. What was the point of that? For that matter, what was the point of anything in this movie? It held my attention and entertained me for about an hour, until the end, when it reminded me that I wasn't watching a first-rate movie. It wasn't even really a second-rate movie, for that matter.

The final scenes seem to hint at a sequel, which I don't think ever happened, although I haven't carefully checked the web for it. Needless to say that I'm not in any hurry to see any sequel to this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
My expectations were high after seeing the trailer. They were even higher when i saw the movie had the same director as independance day and godzilla. The special effects in independence day were much better then in this movie. The whole movie I was waiting for the spiders to show up. The rest of the storyline was really boring. And when the spiders came, they had a very amateuristic look, like the special effects were from a movie made in the 60's. I didn't watch the whole movie. When it was played for about one hour I switched off my DVD-player. I watch 3 movies almost every night, and I have never walked away from a movie, even if it was that boring. The only thing good in this movie was the pretty sheriff :) That's why I voted 2 instead of 1 :) So don't go see this one, instead you should go out and rent Starship Troopers, it's like the same only 10.000 times better.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the "motion" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

wow, this movie sucked.

This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.

Everything about this movie was awful.

The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.

Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.

This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.

If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.
All things old are new again.Erika E. is on celebrity fitness (VH1);Florida State Rep. Mark Foley is the national buzz for allegedly sending sexually explicit Emails to a 16 yr. old male page.As I edit this Mr.Foley is resigning from his representative seat. Mr.Foley you see does his turn at acting as the father of the recovered girl seen during the opening sequence. My place in movie history will forever be solidified with my appearance in the graveyard scene.I should have looked at this as a omen.I hate to say it but be warned If you place this in your DVD be prepare to put your toe on the trigger of the shotgun you'll soon have between your teeth. Your level of depression has reached its zenith.I have seen better writing put to screen on an Etch a Sketch.Shot in 1999-00 under the working title "The Librarians" in and around Palm Beach Co.Why the Librarian's you ask,well you would need to be wrapped as tight as binding to be able to read anything into this frat party of over the hill stunt men plying their trade onto celluloid for one last time.Oh well enough with the accolades...Burt Reynolds as a Irish mobster, in Miami no less...possibly the worst forced accent impression since Linda Lovelace in "Deep Throat". .William Forsythe as a hip, slick and cool tough guy...doubtful,possibly 10 years ago.I'd say it's curtain time for Mike Kirton.You now have the Forsythe to pass up this sub par movie,more like a film school project, for anything on tape,disc or paper your local retailer has to offer.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I was a fan of Buffy and hoped it would come to a proper end when Angel got only one more season. But when the end came closer I was exited to see that. And what did we get? This episode called "NOT FADE AWAY" was the very last one.

I was so disappointed by this episode. This is absolutely the worst way to this series. Why couldn't it get a happy ending? Why did have a few of the main characters to die? Why did Angel not become a human and was reunited with Buffy again? No. Angel has to sign this bloddy piece of paper that he'll never become a human. How stupid.

And the end is a cliffhanger.

What could have been worse? The Buffyshow began so great, such as Angel, but the hole Universe ended so crappy. Somebody should put a spell on the man who wrote the screenplay to this episode and make sure he get's lost in hell.

So don't bother watching this, it's so bad, it hurts! Totally 1 out of 10.
This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

If you don't like Mel Brooks, you won't like this film. That's a given. Why anyone wouldn't like his films is unknown to me, but for those who can't see the light, just avoid it.

Everyone else: This is a classic. The entire cast is perfect: Carey Elwes is a dashing, clever, BRITISH Robin Hood, Amy Yasbeck overacts appropriately as Marion, Richard Lewis is his usual distracted, annoyed self, Roger Rees is a brilliant combination of fluster and violence as "Mervyn" the Sheriff of Rottingham, and Dave Chapelle, Eric Allan Kramer, Mark Blankfield, and the sadly underused Matthew Poretta are the perfect Merry Men.

There are similarities to Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles...and every other Mel Brooks movie. But why would you want him to change his style when it works so damn well? The pop culture references in this movie are old enough to be funny again...from the view of a 16 year old, at least. It's complete and utter parody, every second a play for a laugh. Some of them don't work, but most do, and well. I discovered new jokes the fifth and sixth time I watched the film!

Of course, if being barraged by constant visual and verbal gags isn't your style, you wouldn't like this. This isn't an Academy Award winner, it's Mel Brooks. You know what it is when you're getting into it. If you want nonstop laughter, surprisingly well-developed characters, and catchphrases to last a lifetime, watch this.
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.

Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated "lost" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is best enjoyed amidst a large audience with the giggle-fits.

Very frequently the characters in KADOSH are seen staring ahead intensely at nothing. Very intense unhappy faces, very pensive, very serious. During these moments there is very serious sounding music just to make doublely sure the viewer realizes that the scene being watched is not about fun and games.

The more entertaining portions of this film come in between the many pensive stares. We learn that the women of the KADOSH community have two duties. One is to breed as many male babies as possible for their husbands. The second is to stay employed so to free their husbands from having to work. What do these men do with their ample free time? They pray. And we learn that at home they pray out loud, "I give you thanks for not creating me as a woman." And at their place of worship they pray to give thanks for possessing functioning male genitalia.

Along with the praying there are many scenes of frenzied antics, screaming, and endless head bobbing and bodies rocking back and fourth, and mixed in with everything are many intricate and bizarre (or simple but just as odd) ritualistic activities.

The cream of the unintentional comedy comes from the sex. The imagery of an hot and bothered man actively exchanging body fluids with his wife in bed while attempting to keep his beanie from falling off his scalp is unforgettable!

Every sex scene is funny, but one that stands out is when a husband rubs his face against his beautiful wife's (Yaël Abecassis) feet. Oh yes, we are finally entering the land of sensuality... but NO! The feet rubbing stops before anything happens and the husband begins his autistic looking head bobbing and body rocking until the scene ends!

There are three attractive females in near states of undress, however KADOSH contains absolutely no nudity. Technically, there is some interesting imagery and pleasing uses of light and colors by the director.

For a more believable, educational and entertaining treatment of the plight of being an unclean female unworthy of holding a book in a world where respect is measured by the speed by which a man can cite a phrase from ancient writings, I suggest Barbra Streisand's YENTL.


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
all i can say is that each time i see CONRACK, dir. Martin Ritt, DP. John Alonzo, i feel an utmost sense of inspiration and enlightment in what the power of cinema is possible in such a simple film.

the motion picture Conrack is set in 1969. It is based on a true story. It is a story about a white man (Jon Voight) who teaches a group of young black children how incredible the world is outside of their little South Carolina island.

The story places the job of a teacher as noble cause in changing children's lives.

I highly recommend it.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie was released in all major cinemas in Australia. I watched the movie on the weekend of 7th AUG and I thought is was absolute nonsense (and I am using that word extremely litely). How it got released to every major cinema no idea. The plot seemed simple enough about the world being divided into subclasses and people needed identity cards and the actor Tim Robbins playing an investigator who goes to shanghai to investigate a employee stealing ID cards, which turns out to be the actress Samantha Morton.

You think from that summary the rest of the story should intertyne but it doesn't it just confuses the audience even more with different storyline that don't relate.

If you thinking of seeing this movie let me save u the trouble DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.
This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma' Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in "85's Commando was still very interesting.

Eric Roberts, plays a short-lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak...

I was perplexed, intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, & were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.

Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!
I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's "Salo", but by all means stay away from this movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie with hopes of a good laugh but when I watched it I didn't stop laughing for weeks, they are such bad actors and it made this movie so much funnier to watch. ( BTW Ryan Dunn didn't eat the toy car, he shoved it up his ass) The random appearances from the skaters and Vitos parts were great. Gimme some grapes Vito.! No Valo, your grapes are at the store. I wouldn't recommend any one under 13 to watch it, frankly they wouldn't understand half of the jokes in or what they are talking about. I love VLB and after watching this movie I couldn't help but go buy it or the Viva La Bam series. What is the deal with this stupid comment thing? It has to be 10 lines what kind of Bull-sh1t is that? I should be able to write one as long or in this case as short as I want. I'm just going to keep typing until it tells me I can actually send it. Its just a waste of time, I expected to just say what I wanted, it wasn't too much but then I'm told I have to keep putting more in and then it corrects my spelling, so what if I didn't spell something right, you get what I mean still. This is ridiculously long.

~Those who live by the Sword get shot by those who don't~
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess (I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense) than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I, personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather, spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the best with what you had. ;|
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For those that are great fans and collectors of dinosaurs like I am, it is not only a very informative series but also puts our imagination to fly. Colors, composition, great models and camera angles. Fantastic photography and filming presentation. Superb. Thanks.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Crack House (1989) was one of the few film during the 80's that falls into this genre. What's supposed to be an anti-drug film turns out to be nothing more than some white-exploitation exercise in depravity. There's nothing wrong with that however. The video presentation even has an anti-drug message from one of the stars of the show Richard "turncoat" Roundtree,

The movie follows two young lovers in high school. One of them is a quasi tough guy and the other is his girl. One of them get's turned out by a mutual friend whilst the other is given a trip to the slam and is later on given a chance to get back at his ex-friends. Jim Brown appears as the movie's "Mister Big", he's one bad dude who still can punk-out anybody and is a very sadistic guy who likes to smack his hoes and beat the tar out of those who try to defy his word. Luke from General Hospital makes a guest star spot as well.

If you like hard edge sleaze then this movie's for you. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't make these any more and when they do, it's neither exploitative nor entertaining.

Recommended for sleaze fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I really like Traci Lords. She may not be the greatest actress in the world but she's rather good in this. She play the dowdy, conservative, reporter to a 'T'. It's a great little thriller which keeps you guessing for a good while. Jeff Fahey is also good as Traci's boss. I think given a decent break Traci could be a top actress. She's certainly no worse than some of today's leading ladies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was surprised that the makers of this movie actually came out said that this movie was a true story. The majority of the scenes looked fake to me. For instance when the one girl was eating her sandwich and there was a roach in it. While she was eating the sandwich the camera on the opposite side of it showed that there was a roach on it. It's funny how the camera just happened to be filming on the sandwich when the girl was eating it. Another scene is when the gang went to open a clothes closet and a cat flew out of the closet or should I say it was thrown out to give it effect. This movie was not realistic at all. It's highly doubtful that the events that happened were true that evening when the "St. Francisville Experiment" took place. I believe that the house may be haunted, but not on the night this movie was filmed! The ending was amusing when Tim and and other girl were chained down in the some sort of basement. Paul and Madison found them and rescued them! I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project again then have to sit through the St. Francisville Experiment movie again. As I said, if the makers of the movie did not state that this was a true story with true events I may have like it more. Your better off getting more entertainment from the Blair Witch Project (even though this is not a true story either)!!!

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

negative
It's the Sooooouullltakaaaa!

Wow. What a skin peeling bad movie. Honestly, this is one of my favorite episodes of MST3K.... Just some things to point out...

1) The incestuous lesbian mother-daughter exchange was weird. I do need counseling now.

2) There is no God, there is just Dude.. I love that quote from Crow.

3) Whatever did happen to the Nuns that took the bus home, will we ever know? I have a horrible emptiness in my stomach.

4) Lastly, don't watch this movie un-MSTied... It has Joe Estevez as the main star.. Yikes..

1/10 for un-MSTied 8/10 for MSTied.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This second pairing of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner is a great as the first. Predictable maybe, but I don't care and still laugh so much whenever I see it. The Wile E./Road runner shorts always had the most special place in my heart. So knowing that the second disc of the Golden Collection would not only feature 11 of this, BUT they would be in chronological order (2 through 12, the first episode was on Volume 1), made me get misty eyed. I LOVE this stuff. This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2. It also features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: A+
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I loved this movie so much. I'm a big fan of Amanda Bynes's recently ended show. I admire her(besides her body) for her acting capability. She is a good actress.

The movie was great. Its about a girl named Viola who wants to play soccer, but when her school cuts the girls soccer team she gets upset. Her brother is set to go to a prestigious school and he decides to leave to England. So Viola wants to make an impression by playing on the soccer team at the boarding school. She goes to the school and tries out for the soccer team. She gets in. Meanwhile she meets Duke who is a sensitive guy who plays on the soccer team. He really likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Sebastian-who is really viola. Sebastian is dating Monique and suspects that Sebastian isn't being himself.

This is certainly NOT a chick flick and I enjoyed it a lot. Its so funny and lovable. I don't think I have seen AManda act better.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
All those who are into the PC culture are aghast at the dogmatic Christian view of this film, claiming it contains racist ideation and/or religious intolerance.

Those who don't care about this, but are oriented towards slick production values and competent acting are dismayed at the lack of such here.

Those who decry both of these are apoplectic that this production was let loose on the general public, as evidenced in comments here.

What is an interesting premise, which isn't original, but is a combination of GHOST and FROM BEYOND, is dealt with in a rather immature manner in this film, yet done with gusto. What the crew and actors lacked in sensibility, professional abilities and technical expertise is somewhat offset by the intensity they display.

It isn't nearly as bad as many here think, and would have been fine in the hands of someone with maturity and common sense, and it is enough below mediocrity to elicit laughs and groans. However, it unfolds with enough intensity to keep interest throughout, and is close to on par with a Corman-produced entry of his earliest period of work, or the material of Arkoff or Sam Katzman. If you get it for $2 (or less) as did I, you won't feel disappointed, but will wish you could have had a say in how it was made.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.

Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.

In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of "Marked for Death."

Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.

Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means "outrageous overacting." 

And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.

All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected? 

Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.

Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that...

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

negative
For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women?? 

Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.

Fans of "Renegade" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like "Checking Out." The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's "The Stand" to her television performances. However, "Checking Out" allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.

Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

My sister, a friend and I went to see this film for my birthday on the 24th of September. We had all seen the first "Jackass" movie a while back, and we all enjoyed it. We were really looking forward to Number Two.

We were not disappointed.

From start to finish I was laughing hysterically. It is equal parts shocking and amusing, however, and is definitely not for those with weak stomaches. It is obscene, but it is also groundbreaking American cinema... well, perhaps that's a bit too much praise for a movie where men intentionally get their scrotum's stuck to ice sculptures, but it IS groundbreaking in that it shows us obscenities whether we like it or not, things that no other "decent" American movie released nation-wide would dare show us.

There was only one scene in particular that I felt was unnecessarily obscene, and it involved a horse - I'll not elaborate.

I laughed, I nearly gagged, and I came damn-close to crying (out of a physical reaction to viewing a scene involving a leech and an eyeball, not sadness). In my humble opinion, "Jackass: Number Two" is THE film of '06.

Does that make me a jackass? Perhaps. But if it does, I could really care less.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.
Despite of all the negative criticism I really enjoyed this movie. I am not saying this lightly. I love movies and am fairly picky about them (my home DVD collection is over 9,000 movies - some are great, others are OK, a few I do not like at all). And, to all those with criticisms: this is a comedy. I simply love this movie. It is light, funny, and very restful. I am aware of all (or most) of the deficiencies but I love it. The comedic talents of Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro are tapped (fully - for this type of movie). Do not compare it to other movies with these star actors, simply enjoy it. The cast is great and, I believe, that the purpose of this movie was fully accomplished. If you want a really "easy-going" and very restful night - watch this movie. DeNiro and Murphy simply had fun making this movie, so should we (watching it). And, please, do not be so negative. Do not expect Godfather performance or Meet The Parents from DeNiro, do not expect comedy blockbusters performance from Murphy... It is a completely different genre, and it made me relax after a hard day work. Your sides may not split from laughter, but it is still VERY funny.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
"Sex and the City" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.

The good things about "SATC" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.

The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.

Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.

But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Seen this one in a Sneak Preview yesterday and must say it was terrible. After the credits I thought: "Hey with this cast it'll probably be pretty good". Didn't at all turn out that way. 

Lame predictable groaners, terribly simply drawn characters (maybe except a little Ms. Lara's) and an ending one could foresee 10 minutes into the movie. And worst of all, it misused a delicate theme (handicapped persons) for low level and mostly tasteless jokes without ever touching anything but the surface of the issue. The handicapped person the film sympathises with the most is the one who is just faking it. What kind of message is that? And the film doesn't have a thought through ending at all, it basically comes down to: "I love you, doesn't matter that you acted like a prick."

To sum it up: Great cast that must have been terribly bored to sign up for a terrible flick.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!
The first time I saw Brotherhood of Satan I was 12 yrs old I saw it in a little town in central Washington state it played before Tales from the crypt which we left early because my sisters were already scared from the Brotherhood of Satan. All in all I thought it was a pretty good movie. The beginning was good we had just sat down and that tank did a number on that station wagon.

What struck me about the movie was the scenery around the town in which it was filmed it looked almost like the area around Chelan WA where I saw the movie especially when they were driving towards the town of Hillsboro which is the location of the movie a small town in SW New Mexico. I have always liked LQ Jones and Strother Martin and also Charles Bateman who was on Get Smart another show I like. I gave the movie a 7 and later on when I did get to see Tales from the crypt I thought Brotherhood of Satan was better.

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

positive
With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.

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

positive