cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

Laughable.

Clichéd.

Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.

Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show  a cartoon from the mid-90s  featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.

I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.

To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next  should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.

The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.

3/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.

America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of "native" peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.

Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's "Big Stick". There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best.

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

positive
After seeing Meredith in "Beyond the Prairie" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on "Beyond the Prairie". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see. 

This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.


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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I have it on VHS but its not a great copy as I have watched it 2 or 3 times per year since 1999. I am also in fear that 'her indoors' will throw it out in the annual VHS purge.

My brother and I (Late 30' still laugh at the carry on in this fantastic show.Tim Healys Lucky Cup Hat and telling the apprentice YOU Can DO NONE OF THAT (Shooting, passing etc) and he turns out to be Peter Beardsley.As a Leeds fan I have to laugh at the empty dossier on Bostock before the cup final (or did it say S**t ?)

The reason I came on line today was that my Bro wants it for Christmas so ITV please bring it out on DVD Come on The UnderFelt Men !!
It is interesting to see what people think of this movie, since it is, in fact, quite unique (though it bears some of the trademarks of Clive Barker's writing). Even though it might seem a bit cynical to say so, the movie is just intricate enough to deflect those that need standard Hollywood plot hooks, and layered, so that if you expect to be fed, you will see a normal monster flick with lots of monsters and a disjointed plot.

Those who need a linear, specific and untangled plot line will hate this movie, because the story lies, like in the novella, partially between the lines, or in this case, partially off screen, in comments and the imagination.

Another possible hang-up is the ending, of which I can say, without spoiling it, that it is not entirely good and not entirely bad. It is, in fact, not very defined at all, which I know sends some people into raging tantrums about that they didn't get to know what happened, but to me, and to many others, I'm sure, just adds another dimension to the story - the dimension of speculation, and, in addition, the point that great disruption has a tendency to cause ripples that extend quite far.

There is definitely moral here, but of a rather different kind than the standard Hollywood in-your-face-at-the-end-of-the-movie sort of display. Summing that moral up is simple, even though it is not quite that simply displayed; prejudice and the human tendency to hate the different.

I love this movie, even though, as many of the reviewers have noted, the expressions of the actors (with the exception of David Cronenberg, who does a wonderful appearance) are rather tacky. I'm not sure they are entirely to blame for their rickety appearance and lack of depth, though, seeing that these are common problems in converting literature to screenplay.

All in all, this is a great movie, provided that you do not expect it to be a standard horror movie.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's awful.

Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.

The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.

Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.

He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.

Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.

'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).

Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.

The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.

This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.

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

negative
Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.



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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply "refuse to quit." These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of "just do it" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly "one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of "sci fi" and "suspense" and also "how to make a movie." It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff.
I think that just sums up this film. Watch it and you'll find out why. The acting of the lead character John Keem is really, really bad and he has no on screen charisma whatsoever. It's very funny because of this thought, as is the ending where Keem beheads the bad guy despite the fact he is unarmed and has surrendered. Brilliant!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Most awful casting I've ever seen. Clark Kent as a crack head, a very feminine looking woman as a trans and on and on.............

Stupid ass violence just for the sake of being violent. No content, no meaning. This person has never been on the streets. It's a joke!

The only thing dumber than this movie is the fact that I finished watching it. I just kept thinking it couldn't get any worse but it did to the very end.

Trying way to hard to be an off the hook movie. Trying to be freaky. So stupid! I really have no more to say but can't leave a comment unless I write more.

Please take this advice and DO NOT BOTHER WATCHING THIS MOVIE!!!!! AWFUL!!!
when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.

I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.

It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.

Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong.
Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9/10.

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

positive
Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn

about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch

nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television

not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying

their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet

that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show. 

This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet

Some people think this is a good combination.

I on the other hand think it is retardant.

And if you notice its a lot like jackass

and viva la Bam

just a note, this show is horrible
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Val Kilmer is almost nowhere in this film -lucky for him! He plays maybe 30 seconds of screen time and his role is completely irrelevant. After seeing the film I couldn't tell you what "role" he plays in the film!!?? OK... they suck you in the first hour by immersing you in dark underground tunnels. Spooky movies filmed in dark underground tunnels easily suck most people in to last the first 30 minutes to an hour. Then you will begin wondering, "why am I watching this?" I remember thinking how easy it must be for a director/writer to use dark underground labyrinths to make a film. Simply film people wandering around in dark tunnels and you have instant "suspense". But that is where this movie goes no further! We all wonder what goes bump in the night, but there is nothing out there in the dark in this film but more darkness. The story is even worse. Apparently there is an underlying story to the film that I learned of "after" watching the film. But the film uses such poor dialouge that it never came across clearly during the screening. I still don't understand what the writer/director meant to say. Some children trapped underground by a misled sister in Russia? Why? Are they in our time -the same time as the characters? Are they ghosts? 

This was an absolutely Horrible film that drew me to write my first IMDb review to warn others to avoid it.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.
What's an example of a movie review?

Had no idea what I was going to experience viewing this old film from 1940. However, I always enjoy viewing Laraine Day, (Katie Lattimer) who plays the role as a younger sister to Jean Muir, (Helen Lattimer) and also their mother, Billie Burke, (Mrs. Julia Lattimer). Thought I was going to be bored with the story of two sister's and a mother who is overly protective of her daughters until they meet up with Robert Cummings, (Ridley Crane) who has the reputation of being a millionaire playboy who has plenty of gals and is a heavy drinker who parties all the time. One night, Helen Lattimer goes on a date with Ridley and he proceeds to get bombed out of his mind and simply cannot drive his car. It is at this point in the film when this becomes a drama and changes the complete direction of this film which will definitely hold your attention right to the very end of the film.
Determine the sentiment:

First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since "Love and Bullets", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.

I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.

"Assasination" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.

Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Having watched this film years ago, it never faded from my memory. I always thought this was the finest performance by Michelle Pfeiffer that I've seen. But, I am astounded by the number of negative reviews that this film has received. After seeing it once more today, I still think it is powerful, moving and couldn't care less if it is "based loosely on King Lear".

I now realize that this is the greatest performance by Jessica Lange that I've ever seen - and she has had accolades for much shallower efforts.

A Thousand Acres is complex, human, vibrant and immensely moving, but surely doesn't present either of the primary female leads with any touch of glamour or "sexiness". I don't think this is well received in these times.

Perhaps one reason for this film's underwhelming response lies in the fact that the writer (Jane Smiley(, screenplay (Laura Jones), and director (Jocelhyn Moorehouse) are all women. I know that, in my younger days, I wouldn't have read a book written by a woman. I didn't focus on this fact until years later.

If you haven't seen this movie or gave it a chance in the past, try watching it anew. Maybe you are ready for it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

For anyone who has trouble with naughty, mad or troublesome kids this is an essential programme to watch. It is just the best behaviour documentary programme, not just for tips but for the transformations. The quite attractive Jo Frost is Supernanny, with fifteen years of nannying experience she now has a programme where she shows a family where the kids are misbehaving very, very badly. Frost is the nanny who does not let the kids win. Every episode they have young kids who are mad and very, very naughty, e.g. throwing things, constantly swearing, hitting relatives and parents and many other horrible experiences. But every episode by the end of the show the kids are transformed by the parents (with the help of Frost) from little monsters to lovable children. It is just wonderful when the transformations are successful, Jo Frost is an excellent Supernanny. It was nominated the National Television Award for Most Popular Factual Programme (twice). It was number 15 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. Very good!
This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie! 

This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.

Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.

Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!

Walter J. Langbein
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?

- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;

- Twelve had the same director;

- Twelve had the same producers;

- Twelve had the same production designer;

- Twelve had the same music director;

- Twelve had the same film editor.

Did anyone notice the things than changed once the "Oceans" franchise was established?

- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;

- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;

- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;

- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;

- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.

Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is just another one of those "American finds romance with charming foreigner in exotic European locale." This genre has been cinematically bankrupt since the 1950s, yet they continue to churn them out. I let my girlfriend talk me into seeing this - bad idea, we both hated it. If all you want to see is Tuscany, try watching "Stealing Beauty" with Liv Tyler - a marginally better movie.

This types of genre movies are very Hallmark Greeting Card-ish.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, "Camp Bloody awful"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film... 

Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check. 

It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted cliché imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead. 

One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind. 

Just stay away from this one.
Determine the sentiment:

I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.

What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.

Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end? 

This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather! 

Don't waste your money.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Yes, dumb is the word for this actress. I know many have mentioned her beauty, but this viewer found her empty headed and boring to watch with her bleached hair, lip gloss, and not so perfect body. Watch her walk away in those jeans, showing a rather large butt. Her butt spreads beyond her shoulders. What does that tell you? As for the leading man, played by gorgeous Mark Humphrey, he was perfectly cast. A charmer. However, he and Lancaster just didn't match. She was out of place opposite this good looking guy. Good acting by Susan Glover as the sister. Angela Galuppo had a small role and was okay. But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster. After a while you got tired of looking at her and watching her dull acting ability. And what a bitch of a wife she was. Snooping on her husband, being obnoxious to him and just a plain spoiled brat. Was happy to see her hit with the dart gun. I thought it might be the end of her. But alas, the script tells us otherwise. After torturing myself and watching this loser again, I still came up with the same criticism. Lancaster is boring to watch. This time around her hair, folks. Her hair constantly in her face, constantly tossing it back, became annoying. I question the writer, Alexandra Komisaruk's reason why a good looking wealthy man like Philippe would even bother with the likes of a bimbo like Allison. When there were so many attractive intelligent women, with class, to choose. He picks this nothing. Is this the Rochester/Jane Eyre thing? Oh well, it's all a matter of taste, I guess. This Sarah Lancaster is not my cup of tea, folks.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I raced to the library to check out this miniseries after having just finished listening to the marvelous "talking books" unabridged version of the book. The first half of this TV version is really very good, but it stumbles quite a bit in the second half. The relationship with the trustee is overplayed and conflicts are inserted between Jean and Joe that don't exist in Shute's story, unwisely in my opinion, as they greatly diminish the power of their love story. I was disappointed to find that the wonderful Bryan Brown's Joe seemed a lot cockier and much less appealing than the man in the book, but Helen Morse's Jean was really quite good. I think they would have had to make this a 10-hour miniseries to develop the outback story properly. But all that said, I did watch whole thing in more or less one go and did appreciate its merits, all the while wishing that someone would do a less soapy remake.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Stanwyck at her villainous best, Robinson her equal - as ruthless land barons in this fairly ordinary western.

Some good action scenes, strong use of location, colour and Cinemascope. But why the obvious use of stock footage in the stampede scene?

Ford is dependable as always and Foster is strong as Robinson's daughter, but it is the baddies' film. And it's not just Stanwyck and Robinson - Brian Keith makes a surprisingly dashing villain as Stanwyck's lover, and Richard Jaeckel is unforgettable as a cold-hearted killer.

See it for the camp value.

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

positive
"Hail The Woman" is one of the most moving films I have ever seen in my entire life. I watched it twice in a row and sobbed my eyes out.

This silent film masterpiece deserves a much wider viewing audience; unfortunately the sole surviving print is so badly scratched that most people won't watch it all the way through, and they will miss the gem shining underneath the rough. This film could use a digital restoration, to help bring out its beauty, but I doubt it will get it from anyone, since its main theme is Spiritual restoration before Christ of the family unit, and this is not politically correct these days. However it remains a powerful theme for those whose hearts are hurting from the pain of broken family relationships.

The cast is magnificent, especially Florence Vidor, who literally glows as Judith, the daughter; ethereal Madge Bellamy as Nan, the poor girl who gets pregnant and is cast aside; Theodore Roberts as the crotchety old domineering father who destroys everyone around him through pride; and handsome Lloyd Hughes, as the son David, afraid of his father, but really of life itself. 

This is a nice film to watch at Christmas, especially. You will not regret being patient and viewing it in its entirety despite its deterioration.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This show was a really good one in many ways, although certainly an atypical Western with the hero (?) riding around on a motorcycle rather than a horse, due to the 1914 setting, very "late" for a Western, which tend usually to be set between 1866 and 1890. I remember some controversy about its cancellation at the time but didn't really watch it during its time on NBC. When I came to see it and love it was a decade later when I was in the Army stationed in Germany and it was shown every week from the beginning on Armed Forces Television. By then, Margot Kidder was famous as Lois Lane but I'll also always think of her as Nichols' girlfriend. In a lot of ways, Nichols was a lot like Maverick; both were much more attracted to getting rich with little effort than they were fighting. It was in the little TV magazine that they distributed at the PX (not really an authorized edition of "TV Guide" but made to resemble it as closely as possible without getting into copyright trouble) that I first learned the real story behind the cancellation. I really wonder what the next season with the more violent twin would have been like if they had really made it as planned. Of course, by the time this show was made the "Western era" of TV had been in decline for around a decade; someday I hope to be able to write that the "reality era" has been in decline for that long! While "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza" were still running, they were both nearing their ends and it had been years since a new Western had really caught on; I think that this trend did a lot to hold "Nichols" back, and was the main reason that NBC executives doubted that it would ever find a large audience But to me, a good Western, unlike a show set in contemporary times, is somewhat timeless, as are other "period" shows; changing fashions and the like do nothing to make them look any more "dated" than they were supposed to be, and I think that watching this show, 10 years after it was produced, is really what brought this point home to me. Also, this show is an early pairing of Garner and Stuart Margolin, who is really one of the all-time great sidekicks, and not just in Westerns.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.

Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.

Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).

Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.

As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.
Determine the sentiment:

Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still" exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle. If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.

As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.

That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it.

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

positive
I am a glutton for B-movies. I love the old Drive-In fare like this movie. This film, made for very little money it seems, does do one thing that some bigger budgeted films fail. It is cheezy. It is gory. It has no real plot, but it entertained me for an hour and a half. I was either laughing or covering my eyes in shock. There are a few great effects like a shot from INSIDE a guy's mouth when he gets stabbed in the chin by a knife and it pokes up through his tongue and slams into the roof of his mouth, and one gross-out with a guy getting his eyeballs yanked out. But there is also loads of zombies, and some psycho killers patterned after Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a demon possessed scarecrow. I loved the dialogue that the killers spout as they torture and kill people. It has great camera work, and some cool editing tricks. This one is more original than the first Bloodbath, and the undead look better, but it is still patterned after those dubbed trashy zombie movies of the 70's and 80's and it still has a cheeze factor that ranks mighty high. Don't expect Romero, just second-rate Fulci. I would say that Horror fans will like it, and it is funny and cheezy and a fast ride through B-movie Land.

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

positive
Many accuse Rod Steiger of overacting, and anyone who has seen the Amityville Horror and the 'fly' section would struggle to say otherwise. That said, he's brilliant in this.

It's never on TV, you can't buy it on DVD (legitimately). In 1988, when Channel 4 still had a prescription for innovation, they showed this amongst a small amalgam of 60s films, Privilege etc - and I remember an essentially theatrical experience, transposed well to film. The great thing about theatre is it's enclosed - how do you make it available and interesting on screen? PH just about pulls it off. Because this sort of film is never even on cable or Sky TV anywhere it's hard to get a debate going, but for anyone out there who has seen it or can remember, my memories are of a forthright, almost strident performance by Sally Geeson 'thats all taken care of' (which eschews the almost diffident general performances of her and her sibling in many early 70s offerings) she says ref conception. There are several of these - key lines you remember years, decades on. That's the power of a film like this.

PS I just saw it again and its just as good. One day, TV too will be enlightened.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...

If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...

I am so disappointed...
Soul Calibur has always been my favorite fighting game series of all time. And SCIII is my favorite one of the series.

The graphics are very well done. Much bigger improvement over the choppy polygons in Soul Edge/Soul Blade. The characters have facial expressions, hair blows in the breeze and they even blink.

Soul Calibur has always been known for it's interesting plots and characters and SCIII is no exception. Each character has his/her background story that is detailed and well done. My favorite character is Chai Xianghua. She's cute, she's funny and she's a strong female character. Yeah, I know she wears pink and has a boyfriend (who she ends up saving BTW), but there seems to be more to her than that. Xianghua, like all the other characters, have flaws and upsides to their personalities, so no character is perfect, not even the good guys.

The music is beautifully composed for a fighting game series. It doesn't sound kitchy (the Vampire series) nor does it sound like old school porn film soundtrack (Mortal Kombat). The characters have their own themes and a lot of the themes are done to match the culture of that certain part of the world. I don't think there is a song on this soundtrack I don't like.

Another cool thing about this game is to create your own anime-like character (Create a Soul). You could make him/her look as cute or as sexy or even ugly if you like. However, if you found a character customization that you like, remember to take notes, or else you won't remember how you created that character. I found myself being very addicted to CaS.

Overall, I think Soul Calibur is my number one fighting game series of all time. It has everything I asked for. What more could I want?

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

In print this is one of the greatest short stories ever written, brought brilliantly and poetically to the screen by this father-son team, working together, sadly, for the first and last time.It is fitting that John Huston should end his career on a high note by bringing the work of one of his favorite author's to the screen, in what is easily the best Joyce screen adaptation. Huston made a career of adapting great works of literature to film, usually quite successfully. It is sad, and somewhat puzzling, that Tony Huston pretty much began and ended his career in film by adapting what would be his father's final project and picking up a well-deserved Oscar nomination in the process.

I once had the privilege of sitting in the company of the great screenwriter/playwright Horton Foote, who cited this film as one of his favorites in recent years (at the time it was still a fairly recent release). As a rather prolific screenwriter himself (and a brilliant screen adapter of his own works, as well as great authors such as Faulkner, Steinbeck and Harper Lee) he was obviously impressed with Tony Huston's first time effort, and possibly equally puzzled by his lack of output since then. If anyone has insights to share on the topic I'd be interested to hear more.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive