cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.
One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann. what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate summer movie!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The biggest heroes, is one of the greatest movies ever. A good story, great actors and a brilliant ending is what makes this film the jumping start of the director Thomas Vinterberg's great carrier.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I thoroughly enjoyed Carmen, better than Original Sin (Angelina Jolie & Antonio Bandaras), which share some thematic similarities, and which I also enjoyed very much. I felt the acting was stronger here (Paz Vega displayed a wider range, has more fire; and Sbaraglia was also great). Overall, their acting was more gritty, more believable (less dreamy than Original Sin, and both actors here had less 'celebrity status' and 'pretty face' to depend on to make the movie work. Vega definitely sizzles, as to be expected.

Director Vincente Aranda has also built a detailed world (again, better than Original Sin) that lets you feel the grime and the daily goings-on of archaic Spain - for example, people unloading goods from a cart on the street, workers changing the candles of the street lamps, all in the background of the action. 

Whilst I greatly sympathize with the recent idea of redeeming our femme fatals (like Brian de Palma's Femme Fatale), Carmen is a poignant, modern take in the tradition of the noir classic Double Indemnity, and is a delightful pleasure to watch. This is another fine example of the triumph of daring European cinema over glitzy and safe Hollywood fare.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal's other films though, which unfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of the other films, this does not feel like a 'Seagal vehicle'. You get to see plenty of the other characters as well and all of Mr. Seagal's actions are not the same as we've seen before. The concept of him being an 'intellectual' in something other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change. Although there are some unrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), in general you can let them slide since the film is fun to watch.

It boils down to this: If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Watch it anyway for the fun of it. If you're open to seeing Seagal without the action, it's well worth a look. I personally believe it is some of the best work he's done in quite a while.



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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

North and South is a miniseries from the "golden age" of television miniseries in the 1980s, which was a time for long, sweeping epics with high production values and lots of star cameos. It is, for the most part, excellent for what it is, although I personally prefer the less soap-opera like elements of the story and the overall sense of history.

James Read and Patrick Swayze deliver excellent performances--especially Read, whose George Hazard serves as kind of an emotional anchor in the midst of the often melodramatic story. The series also contains top-notch work from Kirstie Alley, Wendy Kilbourne, Hal Holbrook, Lewis Smith, Genie Francis, Georg Stanford Brown and others. The costumes, filming, sets and music are all first-rate as well.

Don't take it as a history lesson, but take it for what it is--a well-made, sweeping epic from a bygone era. Book 2, which followed a year later, is also excellent, but I would advise viewers to skip Book 3, which came out 8 years after Book 2 and was not nearly as good as the first two parts. Books 1 and 2 are classics, though, even with their soapier elements, and they are well worth watching.
Mostly uninvolving biblical mumbo-jumbo that drags on for well over two hours. The only thing that saves this film from God's wreath (and there is only one God, remember) is the unintentionally funny dialog, and a good battle scene which comes far too late in the movie. For most of the two hours until the action scenes there is too much talking; the dialog is so inept that the movie just begs to be spoofed by MST3K.

George Sanders is absolutely awful; one of the most animated, overly-theatrical performances I've ever seen. Brynner isn't much better; his stiff, wooden acting, combined with the horrendous fortune-cookie wisdom utterings make for a rather boring and silly Solomon. It seems that every time Brynner opens his mouth something oh-so wise and ridiculously high-and-mighty comes out. To an extent it's not Sanders's and Brynner's fault, because of the crappy, comical dialog and the typically biblical one-dimensional characterization, but they made little effort otherwise. Brynner's accent even reminds a bit of Schwarzenegger's; this is not a plus. Only Lollobrigida manages to avoid embarrassing herself, by playing the role with more conviction and in an appropriate way which befits a role in such a silly film. To describe these biblical characters as one-dimensional would be too give them undeserved credit; the characterization is half-dimensional.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Ah the Outer Limits. I love that show. It was surpremely creepy, or down-right mysterious. I loved all the genres of the show, from horror, to thriller to mystery, whatever the genre, it was good. I guess I must have started watching way after it got canceled, when Sci-fi showed it as re-runs, or played marathons of it. It was a really good show, I don't know all about the seasons and everything but I do remember that every time I saw the screen freak out and the voice on the TV say: "There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture" I would squeal with delight. It was a good show, and I enjoy watching it if it would come on. I give it a healthy 8 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's the most violent movie of all time? Rambo III? Commando? Robocop? Add these three very violent together, and you still won't equal the carnage in The Stabilizer, the wildest, silliest, craziest action movie I have ever seen. For one hundred minutes things blow up and people die in dozens of strange ways. It will make you laugh and cheer, and when it's all over you'll be more than a little exhausted. This movie is a buried gem, a cult classic sadly lacking a cult.

The Stabilizer is the nickname of our hero Peter Goldson (Peter O'Brian), a large oily man with a curly mullet. He arrives in Indonesia on the trail of the villainous and mean Greg Rainmaker. We know he is evil because he is only referred to by his full name ("I hate SCUM like Greg RAINmaker!") and utilizes a method of killing that is so horrible I can't even utter it here. Wait, yes I can. He steps on people in spiky shoes. Greg Rainmaker: Cleat Killer.

When Greg Rainmaker isn't pouring alcohol on women for their sexual pleasure, he's kidnapping important professors and heading a huge underworld empire. It's up to Goldson (A Jewish action hero? Gevalt!) and his motley crew of sidekicks to stabilize the situation by killing everyone and blowing lots of stuff up. Maybe "stabilize" has a different meaning in Indonesia.

And the violence, oh the violence. This is a film unwilling, nay, uncapable, of letting five minutes of screen time go by without some sort of explosion, knifing, car crash, or squib interrupting the dialogue. The violence is extreme; not graphic and bloody, just really weird. For example, The Stabilizer & company invade one of Rainmaker's warehouses (by driving through a solid concrete wall on a motorcycle, of course). When perched on the balcony, with heavy fire coming from below, The Stabilizer does the one thing he can do. He drives off the balcony into the guy's head, his front tire bouncing off it like a basketball. Astounding.

From the overly-gratuitous love scenes (Both major female characters hop in the sack with the hero of their choice not two minutes after they speak to them alone for the first time) to the poorly dubbed dialogue ("Victor, you talented bastard!") The Stabilizer has it all. This is a film for the ages, right up there with Citizen Kane and Gymkata. It is not widely available in release. If you find it anywhere for any price, buy it and relish the insanity.



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

positive
A fine performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno and a masterful one by Jean-Hugues Anglade adorn this stange tale of lust, desire and alienation in France. The work of the two lead performers is striking--subtle, intense and passionate. Alas, the script is deliberately turgid and sordid, and the overall effect leaves one with a downcast spirit. Still, those who can appreciate fine quality acting will be able to savor the courageous work of the leads in this often difficult film journey of Gallic low life.



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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.

I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from "Thesis" and "Abre los Ojos") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling "The Shinning" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Vítima" ("The Seventh Victim")
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie is worse than "heaven's gate" or "plan 9 from outer space". Don't know why it got even one Oscar, it should have gotten a million raspberries, just like the audiences that either walked out or didn't show up in the first place. The Hospital was a first-rate financial failure, but I'm certain the elite classes of left-wing, gutter-mouthed intellectuals railed that the American public was far- too plebeian to appreciate biting social-commentary when they saw it, and on and on. George C Scott, in one of most-artless and embarrassing roles, along with aging sex-symbol Diana Rigg spend most of the movie trying to cuss in an increasingly-blasé manner as they push along a silly plot. Poor old George is impotent and is just crushed by the event, but after lots of dirty language between him and Rigg, he rapes her multiple times on lovely night in a filthy, crumbling NYC hospital that looks so disgusting that I wouldn't want a dying pet rat treated in it. There's also some sacrilegious junk-dialog tossed about hither and yon, laced with plenty of cussing as well. It ends by portraying the faulty notion that unusual stress without physical exertion always brings on cardiac arrest. Never want to see another minute of this awful movie again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The antiwar musical "Hair" is my number one cult-movie. I do not know how many time I have seen this film in the movie-theaters and on VHS, or how many times I have listened the CD with the stunning soundtrack, and now, this masterpiece has been finally released on DVD in Brazil.

The pacifist and touching story is still amazing, a hymn of freedom, friendship and liberty of choices, and pictures the resistance of a generation against the stupidity of war. I do not know what happened to this wonderful generation of the counterculture of the 70's and their dreams, since the present world is probably worse than in the 70's. I do not recall who won the Oscar in 1979, but Treat Williams and John Savage deserved at least a nomination for their awesome performances. Beverly D'Angelo is extremely gorgeous in the role of a hypocrite spoiled upper-class teenager. I have seen "Hair" probably more than twelve times, and my eyes always get wet while Berger walks to the airplane singing "That's me, that's me, that's me", and I start crying with his gravestone in the cemetery. I believe this is one of the most beautiful, sad and touching conclusions of the cinema history. My wife, my daughter and my son also love this film; therefore I can guarantee that "Hair" is timeless and recommended for any audience. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Hair"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
1980 was certainly a year for bad backwoods slasher movies. "Friday The 13th" and "The Burning" may have been the best ones but there were like always a couple of stinkers not far behind like "Don't Go Into The Woods Alone" and this one. But in all fairness "The Prey" is nowhere near as bad as "Don't Go Into The Woods" but it's still not great either. One thing is that it's just boring and acting isn't very good but much better than "DGITW" and this movie actually has some attractive looking females to look at, all three of the female leads were stunning. One thing what is up with all that pointless wildlife footage it just seemed pointless and it looked as the director used that to just used that to fill up some time space.

So, what was there to like about this movie? Well, there were a few laugh out loud cheese moments- I couldn't contain a fit of giggles when the final girl did a bizarre type of backwards moon-walk to get away from the kille and there were a few good kill scenes- my favourites being the girl suffocated to death with the sleeping bag; and the phoney looking.

All in all The Prey is dumb, boring and the killer I didn't find scary at all, this movie could have been a whole lot better.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a great TV miniseries of a classic novel. Janet McTeer and John Bowe, in the lead roles, are exceptional. This is one of the best adaptations from a book that I have seen. I would LOVE to get a copy of this - let me know if you know how I might get one...Thanks!
Determine the sentiment:

"Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!" Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I first saw this in the 70s on syndicated TV and admired its production values, which were high tech for the time. The remastered video is rich and colorful, far more intense then the pale 35 mm TV prints. This movie deserves more attention: it paved the way for UFO, Space: 1999 and even Star Wars with its detailed miniatures and cleverly conceived gadgets. Sure, the story of an alternative anti-matter planet Earth has been recycled a hundred times since Star Trek, but the beauty of this film is its self-conscious European flair for design: from the Rolls Royce space engines to the "Euro Sec" letterhead business paper, JFSS or Dopplegangers as it was called in Europe is enjoyable for the imaginary vision of Europe in space in the shadow of the Superpowers. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's ambitious epic gets a little tedious when the American astronaut finally realizes that he is on the doppleganger Earth, and everything is literally downhill after the poetically graceful shuttle boarding sequence. A mediocre story is helped along by a grand and lyrical classical score by the late great Barry Gray, the John Williams of Britain.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"Distant" is a slice-of-Turkish-life flick which follows the mundane activities of two adult male cousins; one a photographer and the other an unemployed underachiever. There's little doubt that auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a work in progress with considerable talent. However, this little foreign minimalistic arty dramady is so full of empty filler and so devoid of story or anything engaging or provocative that it will likely appeal to only the most avid devotees of cinema and mainstream audiences should look elsewhere. I personally grew quickly bored with the slow pace of the film and found myself fast-forwarding through the empty spaces - and there are many - between dialogue, plot development, and denouement. "Distant" is a very nicely done bit of esoterica. (B-)
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I didn't care much for this, it seemed too contrived for a documentary. Also, the filmmakers seemed to steer me towards certain characters, and yet I was completely unsympathetic towards the protagonist because of what they chose to show me of him.

This movie disappointed me because the story and the people were interesting, yet the movie fell flat because of snappy editing that didn't allow the viewer enough time to understand each scene. The developments in the story were glossed over in lieu of showing the men in boxers or other stuff that was incidental to the tale that they were telling.

I'd recommned that you skip this one and just read up on this story.
I was very curious to see this Wajda-Depardieu outing, plus the time period is definitely fascinating. Being a Wajda fan, I was disappointed, and that may be an understatement. The film never really took cinematic flight -- there's no foundation for the animosity between Danton and Robespierre, etc.

Basically, the script was weak (adapted from "The Danton Affair"). And yet, the direction was masterful...it's Wajda, afterall! Also, there were some amazing actors BUT they never really grab the audience's attention like they should. Depardieu comes off as a quasi-goofy, nonchalant Danton...not exactly the image we have in mind. Woijech Pzsoniak is incredible, as usual, but again the script puts up limits even actors of great talent can't break down. Andrzej Seweryn and Bogoslaw Linda pop up ... as Bourdon and Saint-Just...and if you're familiar with Wajda, then you'd know them.

Overall, I was disappointed with this much-lauded film. Great cast, great director, but no quality foundation. Bad, undynamic script. We need to get in Danton (Walesa) and Robespierre's (General J) mindsets... what are their motivations? Eh...who knows? One likes women, the other powders himself? Riiight. Ok, so if you're looking for a great French Revolution movie I HIGHLY recommend "La Revolution Francaise"...it's in two parts and oh-so-great! Excellent performances, in-depth script, juicy tid bits...definitely a satisfying experience!! Klaus-Maria Brandauer is a much better Danton than Depardieu...the wonderful Andrzej Seweryn apparently took some notes from "Danton" and is BRILLIANT as Robespierre. SEE IT! NOW! As for Wajda fans -- you're better off with "Man of Iron/Marble", "Promised Land", and the like. Cheers!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No.
Write a negative movie review.

I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a "how to" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented.
Determine the sentiment:

Apart from being a clever and well-marketed variation on the nowadays hugely popular horror genre and a splendid formula to attract potential new fans in general, I always somewhat considered "Supernatural" as a massively giant homage towards the genre through the decades. Although not always noticeable to younger viewers and/or people who only have an interest in more recent horror films, each and every single episode contains a few obvious and subtler references towards classic and influential titles. From that point of view, it was only a matter of time before the writers would pay tribute to the 'creepy vehicle without a driver' type of films, and even more specifically the 70's milestones "Duel" (Steven Spielberg's acclaimed debut) and "The Car". Being an avid fan of these two films, I enjoyed "Route 666" a lot even in spite of its flaws and shortcomings. The episode opens tense and atmospherically on a remote Missourian road, where a black man is hunted down and eventually killed by a menacing monster truck with seemingly no driver behind the wheel. The victim's daughter, Cassie, happens to be Dean's ex-girlfriend and she calls the Winchester Brothers in for help. The brothers can't prevent two more similar "accidents" before discovering the ghost-truck sudden presence relates all the way back to a racial dispute of the 60's, involving both of Cassie's parents as well as several more prominent inhabitants of the little town. Some of my fellow reviewers around here tend to label "Route 666" as one of the weaker entries in season one, mainly because the script is too preachy regarding racial issues and shows a different and more emotional side of Dean's character. He's usually the strong silent type, whereas here he's confronted with unfinished romantic affairs from the past here. To a certain level I agree with the racism debate, but it didn't bother me that much, really. The writers eventually had to give an explanation to the presence of the ghost truck, and racial conflict is an acceptable one as far as I'm concerned. Concerning Dean's emotional vulnerability, I can only state it's admirable to see how the writers continuously attempt to provide depth and detail to the main characters. Dean's behavior towards Cassie sheds a whole new light on him, in fact. Besides, what really counts in this episode is the wondrously sinister truck and its virulent attacks. It's an impressive and overpowering vehicle, producing blinding lights and grisly engine noises. In case you worshiped the brilliant aforementioned "Duel", you will definitely find some amusement in the compelling chase sequences depicted in "Route 666".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.

I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.

1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...

2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it. 

3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.

All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

In the future, a disparate group of people asleep aboard a commercial spaceship is forced to improvise their survival when the spaceship crash-lands on a remote, barren planet. They already have one problem in that one of the passengers is intense criminal Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel, in his first top-billed role); however, they are soon preyed upon by a strange species of predator that thrives in the darkness - and a rare solar eclipse is soon to take place.

While the script for this movie is ultimately on the routine side, it is decently acted and it is especially well-made technically. Location work, photography, and design (production as well as creature design) are all very impressive. It is not the most original or stimulating science-fiction / horror picture ever made, far from it, but it still provides good entertainment. Diesel is particularly good at getting under the skin of his intimidating character. It is not ENTIRELY predictable, however, and gets some points for

**SPOILER**

having a more politically correct ending than most of its type.

Filmed on location in the desolate Coober Pedy area of Queensland in Australia.

A sequel of sorts is in the works.

7/10
Determine the sentiment:

Take your video camera, turn out all the lights in your house and film people running around with flashlights for an hour and a half and you've got the basic idea of what this film looks like. It is very irritating to watch this kind of movie. To be fair, there are scenes of daylight at the very beginning and very end of the movie. I like scary movies and creature features but this one just didn't do a thing for me. So sorry. I really tried to like it. There didn't seem to be much of a plot other than we've got to find a way out of here. Didn't learn too much about any of the characters so it didn't matter if we lost one or two along the way. This isn't the worst movie in the world. "Open Water" holds that title for now.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.

As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.

As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.

Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite". If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!" (7/10)
There are lot of similarities between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball not only on Sean Connery but also the story and plot. except the actors all other are same like hijacking Atomic bombs, asking for ransom, trafficking nukes in a ship, etc only difference are place of occurrence in thunder ball plot it is in Bahamas in Never Say Never Again it is over North Africa. And in thunder ball the NATO / RAF itself loads the nukes into plane and in Never Say Never Again it is changed by an "rouge arm of the Axe" and air dropped over US and stolen in Caribbean. Almost 99% is same.If anybody wants to dispute this they are most welcome.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.
I didn't think this movie was very good at all. Basically they took a bunch of one-liners from various Shirley Temple movies, threw them together, and had Orr act like Shirley Temple acted on-screen. "Oh my goodness!" was said quite a number of times. If you are familiar with Shirley Temple movies, you will recognize several lines direct from her movies. The trouble is they have Orr saying these in Shirley's everyday life. In the end, what we get is a hodgepodge of re-created Shirley Temple movies, instead of any sort of real look into Shirley Temple's life. Save yourself the trouble and rent Shirley Temple movies, it's a lot better than watching Orr try and recreate Shirley's acting style.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
If you are like me and observed the original "Benji" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.

My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of "Petticoat Junction". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.

Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give "Benji" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a "Benji" fan (if there are still any out there). 

Unlike "My Dog Skip", "Monkey Business" or "Because of Winn-Dixie" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. "Big Valley's" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame. 

If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding "Benji" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

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

negative
This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.

OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.

This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!

The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!

As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say...."If you see one other film"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I just watched the movie tonight and i found it brilliant. It doesn't have special effects that blow your mind, and it's not violent or bloody, no terrorist or aliens but it's brilliant. It's just plain nice, sweet and it brought me to a whole different time, a much simpler time, where people could take their time to walk down the street and look out at the ocean. I think it was beautiful and I for one recommend it. Nick was a great character and his friendship with Harry was one of the highlights of the movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i believe everyone should watch this, mostly when they feel down, or when they want to share something nice with their friends.
I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!

Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.

None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.

The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.

The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad! 

Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel! 

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Imagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes  a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great  you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'

The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way  they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.

At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.

One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it. 

This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five)