cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).

First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said "hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!" 

And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This film has an amazing cast. MGM took some of its finest character actors and starred them in a film with the usually adorable Margaret O'Brien. Lionel Barrymore, Edward Arnold and Lewis Stone star as three greedy old bachelors who live in the same home. While they have amassed a fortune over the years, they also have been selfish jerks. One of them has an idea to donate some property in order to buy themselves a good name (sort of like Carnegie) but it turns out the property they want to give away actually belongs to O'Brien. And, since she's an orphan, they volunteer to be her guardians so they can give HER property away and look like great philanthropists.

There also is a goofy subplot involving fairies--led by the wonderful character actor Henry Davenport. And, since O'Brien is Irish (as evidenced by her outrageous accent), she and the little people make up much of the plot. Frankly, I absolutely hated this portion of the film and wished they'd just dropped it entirely. Instead, the story could STILL have been about sweet Margaret melting the mean old men's hearts--this would have worked. But...the "little people"?!? Sheesh! Overall, the actors try very, very hard but the silliness of the plot and the deadly earnest way they tried made me cringe. I noticed a lot of people liked this film--I guess I'm just an old grouch! I found the film horrible difficult to watch.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read - 

''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''

All I can say is, LMFAO! 

Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.

What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.

Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.

This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this on television more years ago than I can remember, but never forgot the performance of Sammy Davis, Jr. I just by chance thought to look for it on video. This rendition of Porgy and Bess is a treasure. I would love to see it again and introduce my son to it as well. I just can't imagine why it is not heralded as one of the greatest performances Sammy Davis, Jr. every gave. Whoever is responsible for not bringing this to audiences should be ashamed of his/her ignorance. I will continue to look for it though. Maybe the execs responsible for such things will come to realize the forgotten work of so many African American actors.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)

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

negative
...and I'm so disappointed because I can't seem to buy the DVD or VHS of it anywhere.

Its a kind of mix of, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors and Molly Ringwald is fabulous as the spoilt teenager. This was made when Molly was still a brunette, just before she hit the big time with Pretty In Pink.

I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who likes a good clean family comedy, with an edge! 

If anyone has a copy of this, or knows where I can get one...please leave a message for me - it'll be much appreciated.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
One of the most famous of all movie serials! Still interesting today although it does have an "old movie" look to it. The second serial looks better but simply does not equal this one. Actors have a good time , especially Middleton and Lipson. Great editing by the Universal expert crew. The musical score was tracked in from Universal's "Destination Unknown", "The Invisible Man", "The Black Cat", and "Werewolf of London". And what great action music it was! If there was a choice for all-time best serial, this (arguably) should be #1.

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

positive
Some days ago, in Rome, a young Romanian man with criminal precedents assaulted and tortured to death a middle-age lady coming back home after an afternoon of shopping. A Romanian girl, who had seen everything, reported what happened.

Therefore, it started a debate about the too much intense flow of immigrants from Romania, generalizing them as criminals, everyone, indiscriminately.

I'm only 15, but I thought: what idea of affluence does Italy give to these poor people? How ever do they regard us as the Land of Plenty? Yesterday evening I finally saw NUOVOMONDO, and my question had an answer. When you have only a donkey and some goats, those propaganda postcards showing United States as a land with milk rivers and huge vegetables, makes such an impression.

NUOVOMONDO is really a must-see film. It balances an ethereal symbolism (milk rivers, glances' play, hard and rocky mountains, the name and character Lucy/Luce) and a cruel realism (the mass of hopeful people on the ship, the procedures at Ellis Island). There's a mixed cast, going from the angelic Charlotte Gainsbourg to the realistic Vincenzo Amato, till a bitter and smashing Aurora Quattrocchi as the mother. But was it really so hard to enter in the New World?
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It sucked.

I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,

just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Seriously, this film is not. Steve Guttenburg is constantly forcing his tough-guy dialogue and then giving everyone the evil-eye all the time. He just wasn't believable, he seems like he's trying to be a badass and he sucks at it. I just remember him as the millionaire dad with the Olsen twins in It Takes Two...so, this is a BIG change. I rented this film for Sean Bean, and he dies (as usual). Only this time he didn't get impaled on a boat anchor (Patriot Games), smashed by a giant satellite dish (Goldeneye), or get run over by cows(The Field). He just got shot, real quick-like and civil, and that was all I got from this film that they didn't kill him off in an extremely grotesque and morbid way. How sad is that? I was only watching it for the 3 seconds that Sean was in it, and then the rest was rubbish. I actually tried to watch and understand the plot, but there really wasn't one. Seemed a little like Mission Impossible with the hole,"Oooooo! There's a mole! It's the leader of the group, and NO ONE EXPECTED IT! Let's trap him! Let's frame the underdog good-guy so we can get away with it!" Cliched and tired, this movie was a waste of time.
Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband. 

But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.

Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

this movie is so bad and Hellraiser part 1 to 3 are so great. Nothing is good Bloodline... a lot of gore but without meaning and the majority of time without originality. the movie is about the past, the present (1996) and the future of the puzzle box. The creator of the box and his offspring fight against some demon but nothing link up seriously the 3 stories. Pinhead is in the movie...but it isn't Pinhead, he is just a boring bad guy who kidnap kids and kill bird, and the worse...he talk too much. A thing that I really didn't understand is why the dog from hell????? He can't be a cenobites because he had nothing human. Why the dog can be killed by the pressure if the other creature from hell can receive bullets without problems????? Bloodline is incoherent with the movie series in many ways. For example Pinhead and Angelique are old friend in this movie but it's impossible that Pinhead met Angelique because Pinhead is just a soldier from the First World War and Angelique is an old demon and she live in Paris since sometimes like 200 years.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***

1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR

having your testicles ironed.

When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call "The Last Resort" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.

About this show (FNWJR).

Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.

Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his "Its my ball and I'll take it home" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).

However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when "Life On Mars" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said "What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.

Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like "Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted" with an underline message being "please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.

Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A young man discovers that life is precious after he is seriously injured in a street racing accident. His father is a pastor who changes his outlook on life and he spends the whole movie sharing his new-found love for others in this shocking and heartwarming movie. The theme is built around street car racing and it is an excellent movie for people who are into that and movies like 'the fast and the furious'. This shows how people can overcome their problems and gives the general message about the meaning of life in a new and exciting way!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.

At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad "commitment" to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I recently saw this film at a 3-D film festival in Hollywood. It was in polarized 3-D (Gray glasses not red & blue) It was so much fun to watch this film with an audience, the print was excellent and the 3-D perfect. The performances were over the top and that added to the fun, the surprise ending (that we aren't supposed to share with fellow movie go'ers, at least according to the movie trailer and poster) had people howling with laughter. By today's standards this is probably more comedy than horror but with the added dimension of 3-D (complete with cobwebs and bats coming out of the screen) this film was an entertaining romp into 50's horror.

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

positive
The subject is banal, even in 1942. It is war propaganda. The fascists are among us and they are doing all they can to sabotage the war effort and to prepare their victory and their seizure of power then and their establishing an effective totalitarian state. But Hitchcock has to make it a real thriller. So he invents a first sabotage that succeeds but one of the victims, the friend of the one who dies in it, becomes the prime suspect and run-away for the sabotage. That enables him to so-to-say visit the country and discover the tricky organization of the local Nazis who have acquaintances and support in the top benevolent society and use the small little dissatisfied whites to do the dirty work. The chase after the real saboteur takes our young false suspect from Los Angeles to New York and to the top of the organization. He meets a blind pianist who believes his senses to know the chap is not guilty, his niece who is a star of the advertising billboard but also a frenetic and fanatic patriot who only thinks of going to the police. Then the rich rancher and his nest of plotters. Then, on the road some sympathetic and friendly truck driver, and the long caravan of a circus going around and their dwarf, bearded woman, Siamese sisters, and a few other grotesques of that type. And he discovers the target in a Soda City, an electric dam that provides Los Angeles and its war industry with the energy they need. He takes part as a gravel in the organization in the sabotage of a USS Alaska military ship when it is launched. And finally with some inventiveness, creativity and elbow grease he and the pianist's niece manage to get the whole lot cleaned up, most of them arrested and the first saboteur, a certain Fry, falls down from the torch of the Statue of Liberty. That one won't fry on the old electric sparking chair. But Hitchcock is not yet in his habit of having a personal cameo appearance in his own films, so don't look for him. It's well built and well performed, but it is only a propaganda film with an extra style.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

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

positive
I had heard about "gaming" and "Dungeons and Dragons" before, but I had know idea it could be like what I saw in the "Gamers: Dorkness Rising." These guys are so funny and fun to watch. Especially the guy who plays the "bard" or "minstrel" or whatever, he has a gift for physical comedy and timing. There is so much background humor and energy in some of the scenes that make you really think that at least some of it was improvised there on set. The special effects needed to be worked on a bit, but I saw it at a convention last year and thats one of the things they said they were going to redo and make better, so it's probably wicked now!

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

positive
Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).

This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Can you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get

your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even

from Flint. He just says that to keep his "blue collar" look. He's 

from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.

His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem

like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.
You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.

2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.

3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.

4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.

Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.

If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.

And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I found 'Shuttle' an incredibly frustrating film to watch. It starts quite well and moves along briskly until the first 'injury' (which is a doozy). After that it becomes very lazy and underwritten as a story. It was the case of the plot driving the characters and not the characters driving the plot. If you hate film where you can't understand why characters do what they do, you will loathe 'Shuttle'. Particularly, the last act is odd and seems to occur in a world without common sense. Also at the end one of the characters confessed a past misdemeanor to her friend, rather than generating sympathy from the audience, most people started to giggle. This was probably because the 'heroines' of the story was a complete idiots. Finally there is an ending which just seems tacked on to be 'shocking' and comes from the horror cop-out school of 'people are bad, audience, so just accept it without any explanation'.

'Shuttle' is neither good or bad, but mediocre. And annoying.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself "what's the point" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

My guide for the quality of the a movie is if I'm still thinking about it after leaving the theater. I'm still thinking about this one the next day, which doesn't happen often.

The scenery (a reasonable guess for 16th century Italy), costumes, lighting, cinematography are all excellent. It is a beautiful film visually.

Characters can never rise above the script they must recite, but these actors made the most of their material, which is excellent. This is one of Shakespeare's best plays, which people will still enjoy another 400 years down the road. All of the principals were interesting and enjoyable.

Those who say this is anti-semitic must be deaf and blind. If anything, it is anti-Venitian-16th-century-Catholic. While Shylock plays a man controlled and tortured by the hurts he has suffered, it is clear that the society in which he lives is largely to blame. The script clearly places his personal responsibility where it belongs, as well.

A great film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with "Citizen Kane": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of "Kane" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Though I saw this movie dubbed in French, so I'm sure it lost something in the translation, lack of accents, etc., it was an excellent, fun movie for a lonely night in a hotel room--a real pick-me-up that portrayed accurately and positively the complexities of individual sexuality, gender role, and finding a place within the communities to which one is supposed to belong--male, gay, urban, 30-ish, etc. I was very proud of French television for showing such an honest and positive portrayal of the gay community. While the fact that the gay lead character ends up somewhat "straight" in the end is mildly disappointing, that's life, and that happens sometimes. This is a great movie, whether alone or with a date! A really enjoyable experience.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The Tempest has been interpreted in many different ways ranging from more or less traditional views as dealing with Art to more post-modern approaches that like to dissect the play along post-colonial, feminist, gender or deconstructionist lines. The reason why Jarman's version left me fairly cold is that I didn't have a clue what he was on about. What is the underlying vision/idea/concept behind this rendering of Shakespeare? The previous reviewers do not get much further than revenge tragedy, punk show, but surely there is more to it, isn't there? This is not to say that there is no vision here, just that I was hard put to discover it. Be that as it may, there are still things to enjoy. The punk flavour is refreshing and funny. Toyah Wilcox as Miranda and Jack Birkett as Caliban are wonderful. I did not much care about Williams as Prospero ... not enough magic I suppose. The switches between the old monastery/castle and the (very English) world outside can be a little unsettling at times, but I guess that is intentional. All in all, interesting but not quite the success I had hoped it might be (particularly after seeing Jarman's Caravaggio).
I went to see this movie at the theater and paid money thinking it would be at least mildly entertaining. The only thing I enjoyed about it was when Robin Williams crashes into the car at the bottom of the hill, and the end, when he seems to get killed. Glenn Close was obnoxious, and she obviously did not seem old enough to be Garp's mother. A mother like Garp's would have had her kids taken away by the Department of Children and Families. 

Robin Williams and his glazed donut look of benign goodness is just too sweet and smarmy for me. He has two roles he can play: Funny person or sad, tragic, good-hearted victim. See the Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, and all of his so-called "dramatic" roles. It is always the same performance. Put them all together into one long mini-series. Glenn Close is always a cold fish. Remember Fatal Attraction? Would you have an affair with her even on your worst day and if you were single? Did you feel any sparks between her and Michael Douglas?? Have you ever seen Glenn Close warm up any screen?? John Lithgow had the only interesting role. This was back in the day when he used to play serial killers and bad guys, so seeing him as a transsexual was at least funny. Garp is made for all those people who love to see movies about sick, abnormal, dysfunctional people and then claim it is beautiful and profound.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;).

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! 

What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film, also known as "don't look in the basement" is actually not bad. It is a little known film even to die hard horror fans but I found this movie pretty entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not without its problems but do think more people should give it a look. The story of a hot nurse going to work in a sanitarium is certainly an appealing one to me. I thought the acting , which seemed forced at first, somehow got better as the film went along. It seems like the actors really got into their roles. There are some good, colorful characters, including a guy who thinks he's still a soldier, one who thinks he's a judge, an adult with a child's brain, and an attractive girl who craves attention so bad she drops her clothes when any man gets near her. The title "don't look in the basement" has about as much relevance to the story as "the last house on the left" has on that film. If you like movies with creepy characters in a mental ward like I do, check this out.
I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.

Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Geração' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A good friend of mine one said: "A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere." There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Talk Radio" is my favorite Oliver Stone movie, though he has made many great ones including "Salvador", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Platoon". But I like the intimacy of "Talk Radio", a cinematic expansion of Eric Bogosian's searing stage play that was based on a real life account of a Dallas talk show host. Working with ace cinematographer Robert Richardson, Stone turns what could have been a very set-bound exercise into a visually arresting ideological battle that presents a radio station as an arena of war. Bogosian is devastating as tortured on-air spouter of abuse Barry Champlain and conveys the conflicted, destructive nature of his character with conviction and a generous dose of self-loathing. Alec Baldwin, as his Alpha male boss, strikes the perfect note as a man driven nuts by a guy whose monstrousness he helped nurture. Ellen Greene is fantastic as Barry's sweet ex-wife who ends up becoming another target of his vicious personal vitriol. Stone and Bogosian fill every frame with interest and every line of dialog with sweet poison and cutting ambiguity. John C. McGinley, as Barry's long-suffering screener/technical producer Stu, turns in a hilarious, sharp performance, as does the great Michael Wincott. The film is a flawless, underrated masterpiece of superb writing, awesome acting and brutal, uncompromising direction. The Stewart Copeland score is brilliant, too.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
In relative terms having watched a lot of disgustingly bad tele Tom Fontana & Levinson are geniuses for creating & delivering In this writer's book the greatest ever TV show. Oz was treated horribly In this country, the finale went out well gone 3 In the morning, before that It was strictly considered alternative viewing for those oblivious to prime time garbage.

I first caught Oz towards the end of the first series and from then on It was an unmissable watch. My man Adebisi possibly the most Intimidating villain ever, Beacher the perfect anti-hero, Eammon Walker's Saeed an acting class In evocation. There was the hardcore stuff of course - some plain evil but essentially Oz had soul. Augustus narrates the unfolding plot with pearls of Insight while the struggles of Beacher, Mcmanus, Saeed, Rebedahl etc are better than any soap opera before or since. Compassion violence wisdom tragedy Intelligence pain joy brutality love & heroism Oz went through the spectrum of human emotion - all Inside a max security prison! 

I can honestly say those Thursday nights with the great Vids to follow Oz series 2/3 way back In 99 were the best TV I'll ever see. Beacher assaulting Vern In the gym Is a moment I don't need a video for - a small screen classic I'll never forget.

Imagine what Oz would have done with the same push as the Sopranos given a 10 pm timeslot and all the promos??? Fine I'm over that now, for those that caught It consider yourself privileged for those who didn't TV is shite.......and you deserve It.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10.

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

positive
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.

I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.

And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? 

I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!

When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.

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

negative