cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
First of all, those who are faint at heart should definitely avoid this film. Even those, like me, who are desensitized to most graphically violent and sexual acts in movies should beware. I'm not telling you to steer away from the film, but be aware that what you're about to see is some disturbing material. Definitely not a pleasing film to watch, but nothing is put on screen strictly for shock value. But I must admit, when I watched the film for a second time, I had to skip to the next chapter when the "razor blade scene" came up. 

The main character is one of the most unsympathetic sympathetic characters I can think of, but we start to better realize the humanity of her character later in the film's second act. In one scene, she stuffs broken glass in one of her student's jacket pocket after being dissatisfied with her apparently unsatisfactory performance and getting nervous when in front of a live audience. The student goes into her pocket and cries out with pain as she stares at her blood-stained hand. Next to the razor blade scene, that disturbed me most. The student's mother is not much more sympathetic than she. When she gets word that her daughter won't be able to play, she talks about it like she also got also her hand injured, being one of those spoiled mothers who tries to torture her daughter into becoming an overachiever. 

Though the film intrigued me and caught my interest for the most part, I felt more needed to be explained about Isabelle Huppert's character. When a woman is fascinated by sadomasochistic porno movies and engaging in that behavior herself, you want to understand the root of the problem. The movie establishes that she wants desperately to be loved. Then why the hateful attitude towards everyone? Why does she receive sexual pleasure from pain? 

The acting is terrific and I liked the glossy, stylized lighting. Altogether, it's not a film I'd recommend if you're in the mood to be entertained, but as I said it's very intriguing. And I'm sure if I watched it a few more times, I'd be able to spot certain subtleties that'll shed more light on aspects of the film I didn't realize initially. 

My score: 7 (out of 10)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The second episode of the new "Lost" gives you just what its fans were lacking - a fair amount of riveting action. From the very first scene, you keep seeing brand new features you weren't expecting to encounter. It's the best proof that the series, ingoing its 4th season, is still alive and kicking hard.

Although the producers don't amaze us with some more flash-forwards this time, the return to flashbacks is more than satisfying, as it brings some shocking facts. The flashbacks introduce a few fresh characters, and the familiar ones turn out to be connected in a surprising way.

The fresh characters dominate the whole episode and I can't say it does any harm. Their scenario parts and their actors both do extremely well, providing us with a bracing feel - right after the episode, you'll realize that the show really needed people just like that. And here they are.

"Confirmed Dead" is full of gripping action and greatly written dialogues. I'm sure I'll quote the best scenes of the episode for the long time - they're just that good that they remain on the spectator's mind. The episode is entertaining, smart, and perky. You like "Lost", you have to watch it. My vote is ten.
I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD ("but one day, one day..."). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable ("When I Am Older," "You and I," "Fill the World With Love," "London Is London" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.

Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.

One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.

Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.

I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.

The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.

When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Captain Corelli's Mandolin is one of Nicolas Cage's better films. He turns a fine performance as the title character. This is a romance set against the backdrop of a worn torn island. John Hurt's character gives his daughter, played beautifully by Penelope Cruz, some honest advice about love. This movie doesn't have the fault of being completely predictable. This movie also allows Cruz to turn in a performance as a strong woman who knows her own mind and heart. Once the film warms up beyond the opening sequence this film keep you focused on it. Again, Nicolas Cage did not disappoint.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.

As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.

Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie reminds me of Harry Potter - not the style but the marketing strategy. There may be part 2 , part three...until one day the product life cycle finishs, of course on the condition that the part one has a commercial success. so many things seems to be hidden and thus the story looks quite incomplete. the action design is boring. set design is ok but not fine. perhaps Edison Chen would be a big star one day. He really looks charming even on big screen. The most impressive is still Anthony Wong. 4/10


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

this particular title is very interesting. the whole movie was like watching a ninja RPG, which is really cool. three magical swords, three clans, a horrible demon, a political power, yotoden has it all. the animation is decent, but a little grainy, the story is top notch, and the fight scenes are real cool. one thing that really looks good in this movie are the monsters. they are pretty freaky. if you liked blood reign and ninja scroll, yotoden is the one to see.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood  in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events  with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom  as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course)  with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker)  and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Ah, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic "Trainspotting". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he/she don't want to listen to my warnings.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.

The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.

Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like "Jäniksen vuosi" and "Loma" are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.

Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.

It's nice to see that idea of "Jäniksen Vuosi" still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) "Jäniksen Vuosi" Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankylä, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :)
Determine the sentiment:

This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best 'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of sincerity you'll find in Uzak.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I will divide my review into following 5 categories each accounting a maximum of 100%(if perfect) ________________________________________________________________ 

Visual Pleasure:[100%] This is extremely pleasing movie visually. I had a great time watching it. Golfing scenes are very well shot and the dramatic effects on the green were quite amazing. I also loved seeing the old wooden golf clubs and the bag.

Director's Work:[70%] Bill Paxton is more associated to acting but this film shows he's got talent. Did a decent job.

Acting:[90%] Shia LeBeouf was very good in his role of Francis Ouimet(this guy can ACT well). The rest of the cast was also good.

Entertainment Value:[100%] I enjoyed every minute of it. It was overwhelmingly entertaining.

Script:[91%] Based on a true story and therefore it makes the film that much more special. It was intriguing right from the start and loved every scene till the very end.

__________________________________________________________________ 

My Advice: Definitely a MUST watch for all the Sports lovers especially Golf(You all will love it). Anyone who is looking for a nice entertaining movie and doesn't hate Sports can watch it. 

_____ 

10/10

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
(This might have a spoiler)

When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!

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

negative
I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogue

I simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.

Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories. 

Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.
What's an example of a movie review?

The lament and almost unbearable melancholy of Amalia Rodriques' music goes to a place in the soul that only music can stir. In her voice and magical presence, lies the exquisite agony of the Fado, an art form of which I was unaware until seeing this film.

For me, the success of this beautifully and lovingly crafted documentary lies in the fact that the filmmaker resists the temptation to editorialize and simply allows us to share in the magnetism and elegant passion of this icon. There seems to be an inevitable corrolation between the Portuguese Fado and American Blues.

Documentary filmmaking at its best, transports us to a previously unknown reality. and having been allowed this glimpse, we are transformed.

Abrigado, Sr.de Almeida
For pure gothic vampire cheese nothing can compare to the Subspecies films. I highly recommend each and every one of them.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.

The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.

What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.

I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.

The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.

This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.

The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What's there not to like?

I caught this again tonight and marvelled as to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to tics and caricature.

There are many layers to the depiction of the complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother, his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman. 

His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot, and continued to see him!) 

Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his mum is an added bonus.

9 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Never having read or seen the Bard's original work, I can't begin to compare this work to his story. So I won't. Instead I will just say that this was a very entertaining story with some very nice special effects (and some that looked a little lower in budget, but still decent enough to enjoy). I thought all the primary actors did a fine job performing. The style of magic seemed more black than white and is almost certain to offend anyone easily upset about that sort of thing, but I thought it was well done.

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

positive
Mockney comes to Brighton; despite a poor reception in the British press and state-funded-British-cinema written all over it I rather hoped that we'd get a bit of the grimy, hard-nosed London-by-the-sea of Graham Greene.

It doesn't even aspire to this. Characters straight out of their clone 'n crimp trailers reproduce Guy Ritchie's types. The format looks more like a British TV series than a film (Brighton is a backdrop goldmine, wasted with plastic studio work).

I watched this film in pursuit of a good performance from Famke Janssen... she's a bit slick for this company, her brand of big screen impertability belonging more to blockbusters such as Deep Rising. As for acting (a role even!) the search continues. Circus is boring. 3/10

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

negative
Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews

have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought

would be hysterical.

Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F

by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-

of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in

Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the

flimsy plot.

This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's

Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The

Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have

shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.

Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the

action from two different angles, then being edited together. This

sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an

obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his

scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double

over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of

the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with

severe flatulence, over this thing.

Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes

no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the

latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The

supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,

which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to

watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the

last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a

performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring

in at the beginning.

The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to

put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their

eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most

blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was

slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put

me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene

where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.

"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely

drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last

three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a

formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you

actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The

Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a

while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.

"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.

I do not recommend it.

Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun

violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in

seeing this, please consult professional help.


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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me.
First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.

The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.

Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.

The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.

Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.

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

negative
Jean Dujardin gets Connery's mannerisms down pat: the adjusting the cuff links when entering a club as all the women turn to admire him, the nonchalant straightening and smoothing down of the tie, the swaggering, steely gait. It's uncanny, and you come to realise just how much of Bond in the Sixties was Connery's creation and not really Ian Fleming's character. 

The cinematography is a nod to those early films, the movie takes off From Russia With Love and Thunderball mainly. The main joke is how chauvinistic the hero is, not just in terms of sexism but nationalism and colonialism, and how he puts noses out of joint when he is sent to Egypt. 

It's not perfect - about 20 mins in it seems a one-joke movie and bits of it remind one of spoofs of the day, of which there were plenty. Morcecambe and Wise's The Intelligence Men had suspect-looking men in fez's following their heroes around too, and that's going back a bit. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau or Baron Cohen's Borat, Dujardin doesn't give his character that layer of realness or genuine pathos - he is too busy perfecting his Connery mannerisms. It doesn't do enough with the credits or a big song, and there's no funny or serious villain, like Mike Myers' Dr Evil or Ricardo Montalban's Naked Gun nemesis, for the hero to go up against.

But the scene where OSS117 wakes up in Cairo one morning had me laughing out loud in the three-quarters empty cinema, and the whole thing looks wonderful, plus you'll never get a chance to see Operation Kid Brother on the screen, and the women are ace crumpet, really hot. It's a Bond spoof without falling into the mad scientist/Ken Adam sets or funny gadgets routine. Throughly recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie almost has everything. The action is cool, it's funny, 2 great leading men and a truly nasty villain that I REALLY hated. Not a lot of films have BAD bad guys. Just mainly comic book villains. He really does deserve a might ass kicking.

Jake Scott really does have his fathers talent for knowing how to make great visuals. The direction is faultless and has an irresistible lighthearted feel. I don't usually like films set in the old days but this I liked a lot because it makes a point of boring like so many other period films are (Sense and Sensibility, Age of Innocence and the absolute worst...Lady and the Duke). This will restore your faith. Thanx mostly to Craig Armstrong's amazing score. The music is both atmospheric and ethereal and in scenes of action it is very exciting.

The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and has a very grainy and muddy looking 2.35:1 anamorphic picture.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I'd love to see some tie-in between NightBreed, The Fury, and the X-Men Series, sort of the way the second Outer Limit's Series would tie-in particular stories and plot-lines after the fact, to create a Story Arc although one was never intended. I'd also like know if some more information - anecdotal or otherwise, exists anywhere about the relationship and/or collaboration between Clive Barker and David Cronenberg. I simply can't get my mind around the fact that David Cronenberg appeared as a mere actor in a Clive Barker film. Does any additional information on the subject actually exist? Finally, it's been 17 years since the film was released, and I had hoped there would've been a sequel by now. Does anyone out there know if there were any plans in the making that never came to fruition, or if in fact there are plans even now for a sequel?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Poor Diane Arbus (whoever she was). Not only was she (according to this movie) a spoiled-but-sweet-acting upper East Side brat, she was a bad wife, bad mother, awful business partner; plus there is no evidence in this picture that she was any kind of an artist -- except in the bold statement in the prologue.

Nicole Kidman, who incredibly is more attractive today than 25 years ago and actually looks younger, indeed gives an excellent performance; but what can an actress do with a wife and mom who seeks out and falls for an incredibly weird werewolf-looking guy living in the apartment upstairs? Set in the early 1970's, Manhattan was a virtual magnet for freaks and weirdo's of all sizes and shapes, most not looking like human hairballs; so why is this affair worthy of a 122 minute movie?

Robert Downey Jr used to be one of my favorites, but I'd say his well known and prolonged use of drugs has taken its toll. One might think he'd be disinclined to be in a movie that treats drug use as casually as it does smoking cigarettes. 

FUR has already taken a beating at the box office, but in view of those who input a score of 10 for this misbegotten slice of trash, I'd like to say, 'taint so, McGee.
Write a negative movie review.

I was all ready to hate this but it turned out to be surprisingly tolerable - though the MTV-style of film-making (shot on DV, to boot) is quite an eye-sore! I liked the script's self-mocking style, as well as its central idea of having the female vampire lead doubling as a contract killer. As to the cast, Eileen Daly (best known as the 'star' of those horrid "Redemption" intros) has an undeniable screen presence - and is quite sensual, despite her age; however, Christopher Adamson's hammy chief villain is obnoxious. David Warbeck has a brief role as a doctor (dubbed "The Horror-Movie Man"!) who conducts the autopsy on one of the vampire's victims; the film seems to have taken quite a long time to shoot as Warbeck died in 1997! There's plenty of nudity and violence on hand, but not much sense alas (especially since its subplot involving a secret society of vampires infiltrating the power structures is barely developed); the film is also overlong for its purpose, and eventually slips into tedium during the last half-hour.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!

I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.

Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!

I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.

This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.

Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

A really funny British comedy from the mid 1950's about a school for girls. The girls are all involved in mischief and mayhem, making bathtub gin, smoking and gambling. Alastair Sim plays Headmistress Millicent in a glorious drag role, as well as playing Millicent's brother. A female police officer goes to the school undercover to see what is going on. This film is funny, having great sight gags and Alastair Sim is great. Just a classic Britsh comedy, lots of fun and not too cruse. Joan Sims ans Sid James, stars of many Carry On films, play small roles, but this film is about the girls. It spawned 3 sequels and a recent re-make. Watch and enjoy where it all began.
Some people say the pace of this film is a little slow, but how is this different from any other Hitchcock movie? They all move very deliberately and, as a point, have spurts of suspense and brilliant montages injected through it. This movie gives us just the right amount of comic relief which make the suspense scenes seem all the more suspenseful. The Albert Hall scene is one of the best examples of Pure Cinema that exists in Hitchcock's collection (the best probably being almost all of "Rear Window"). Pure Cinema for Hitchcock meant a series of usually small pieces of film fit together without dialogue, in order to tell the story visually. This is, of course the basic definition of the Albert Hall sequence, as well as the shorter staircase sequence at the end of the picture. 

Not many slip-ups by Hitchcock here, and the acting is superb especially by Doris Day in a rather surprising serious role.

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

positive