cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I love sci-fi and am willing to put up with a lot. Sci-fi movies/TV are usually underfunded, under-appreciated and misunderstood. I tried to like this, I really did, but it is to good TV sci-fi as Babylon 5 is to Star Trek (the original). Silly prosthetics, cheap cardboard sets, stilted dialogues, CG that doesn't match the background, and painfully one-dimensional characters cannot be overcome with a 'sci-fi' setting. (I'm sure there are those of you out there who think Babylon 5 is good sci-fi TV. It's not. It's clichéd and uninspiring.) While US viewers might like emotion and character development, sci-fi is a genre that does not take itself seriously (cf. Star Trek). It may treat important issues, yet not as a serious philosophy. It's really difficult to care about the characters here as they are not simply foolish, just missing a spark of life. Their actions and reactions are wooden and predictable, often painful to watch. The makers of Earth KNOW it's rubbish as they have to always say "Gene Roddenberry's Earth..." otherwise people would not continue watching. Roddenberry's ashes must be turning in their orbit as this dull, cheap, poorly edited (watching it without advert breaks really brings this home) trudging Trabant of a show lumbers into space. Spoiler. So, kill off a main character. And then bring him back as another actor. Jeeez! Dallas all over again.
Intelligent summary, isn't it?

If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!

Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.

Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.

3/10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art. 

The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.

The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.

The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets. 

The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!!

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in "Dear John," but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers. I usually do enjoy film adaptations of these novels. Ironically, I did think the movie did an excellent job of depicting realistic military action.

The cinematography was very good at segueing through love letters, focusing just enough on a key word or phrase in each letter. I felt that Channing Tatum became bogged down in what became a very "hang-dog" series of expressions in response to loss.
Write a negative movie review.

Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "How can a name, not even a real name, break your heart?" Here's how. There have been few film versions of a celebrated novel that have done better justice to their source material than Anthony Minghella's movie of Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain. If you've read the book you will be able to feel most of the major scenes soul shakingly recreated. I personally cried numerous times while reading the novel and spent much of the evening watching the film through tears. 

Astounding scope, beautiful words, great acting and great music. In the interview on the DVD accompanying the film Minghella talks about the multiple layers of the story. All of them work. One of the best films I've seen and an invitation to one of the greatest novels of the last ten years.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle. 

Using more staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans.

There have been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its "Finest Hour".

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

positive
After reading about this documentary, I rented it and watched it with my teenage children. It was amazingly well-balanced, showing each side's perspective and leaving many questions unanswered. This is as it should be. I don't watch a documentary to be told what to think. I watch it to learn and to draw my own conclusions.

Afterward, we took a trip to Waco and visited the Branch Davidians at the site of the conflagration. This was a potent lesson in seeing for yourself. And it drove home the basic underlying honesty behind "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." If you just open your eyes and look, the facts can speak for themselves.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.

The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!

No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. 

He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.

He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.

When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!

If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.

Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)

No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Here we have the inimitable Charlie Chaplin forsaking his slapstick past to tackle the serious subject of anti-Semitism, and intolerance in general. He portrays two characters - the sweet, innocent Jewish barber - a war veteran, and the raving and ruthless dictator, Adenoid Hynkel. The Jewish ghetto in this country is not safe for long, due to the whims of Hynkel and his armed thugs, who routinely rough up its residents, or leave them alone, dependent upon his mood that day or week. The barber is among them, but is befriended by his former commanding officer, Schultz (Reginald Gardner), who seems to keep things quiet for a while, until Hynkel condemns him to a concentration camp. He seeks refuge with the Jews in the ghetto, most specifically the barber, and the feisty young woman, Hannah (Paulette Goddard). The premise will be - who will be the one among these Jews to put their lives on the line to get rid of Hynkel and his cronies? We needn't guess too hard to know the answer; the barber is a dead ringer for the dictator, and he is outfitted in his image, accompanied by Schultz, also in full military gear. Hannah escapes with several of her ghetto friends to the country of Osterlich, where Mr Jaeckel's (Maurice Moscovich) cousin has a farm, and they can live peaceably for a while. At this point, Hynkel himself has been arrested by his armed forces, thinking him to be the notorious barber. The latter, meanwhile, has been escorted with Schultz to a podium, to make a speech announcing the conquest of Osterlich. The ensuing ten minutes is pure Chaplin himself, speaking from his heart of tolerance, love and freedom, and denigrating greed and hatred. Albeit Chaplin started production on the film in 1937, it can be forgiven some naivete. He was allegedly unaware of the gravity of this persecution and hatred, and said had he known the full extent, he would never have made the film, because he most likely believed it would have trivialized the situation. He has a marvelous supporting cast: Reginald Gardner, Henry Daniell as Garbitsch, his aide-de-camp, the always wonderful Billy Gilbert as the bumbling Herring, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie as the dictator Napaloni, his rival for conquest, veteran European actors David Gorcey (Leo's father), Maurice Moscovich, among others. The scene he choreographed with globe, with just a musical accompaniment is sheer, luminous inspiration, and luminous, as well, is Paulette Goddard at the film's end, smiling through her tears. I have seen this film before, but there is always something new in it for me. Last evening, when it finished, I sat there in tears. I defy anyone not to be moved by it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 4/10
What a mess of a movie! If it wasnt for Eric Roberts and Susan Sarandon's performances ,this movie would be a total waste! A very muddled plot and phony dialogue.Eric Roberts debut....where did his career go from this movie on?Nowhere but down!

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

negative
I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest departures from a book I have seen.

I can't add much to the other reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released on DVD. "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me."
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.

Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from there.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.

I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.

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

negative
A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he  or, for that matter, Michael Elliott  was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother  shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist  who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

During university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us "Roger & Me" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.

As we finished viewing it, I thought: "Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination." However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its "qualities". Just so we understand each other, the words "propaganda", "viewer manipulation", "left-wing Extremist", or "selective fact presentation" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.

Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.

The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.

Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with "Canadian Bacon"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.

Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever.
As a serious marathoner, I was seriously disappointed in this film. Its target audience is clearly those who have never run a marathon, or novice marathoners. Following the stories of 2 first-time marathoners, one senior, one injured runner, and two elites as they prepare for the Chicago marathon, the film dedicates the majority of its attention to one female beginner whose story is, for lack of a better word, boring. While I did enjoy the brief glimpses into the training sessions of Deena Kastor, the brief history of the Boston marathon and marathoning in general, let me emphasize: These were brief!! Watching some Joe Runners prepare for a Saturday run with their water bottles and talking about how they view the marathon is not inspiring, and the nonstop clichés about achievement and feel-good grinning runners will make you wish the film were about an hour shorter. If you are a first-time marathoner, this film may give you a feeling of "I can do it." For anyone else, run away.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I may differ from many people on this board but I enjoy watching Mind Of Mencia. The reason I like Mind Of Mencia is the host is not afraid to speak his mind or exploit stereotypes. Carlos Mencia does what we all do with our friends but are unwilling to admit and then some.

Mencia has no problem doing jokes about any race, religion, sex, or orientation. While he gets a lot of flack for this it is a breath of fresh air in these politically correct times. Mencia does not care if he offends anyone but he is not a racist and even does jokes about his own race.

The typical format for the Mind of Mencia goes like this: there will be an open skit making fun of a person or recent event. Mencia then comes out and does a 5 or 6 minute stand up where he talks about various issues. The show then has 2 separate skits divided by commercials. In these skits Mencia does a variety of things such as making fun of people, giving his personal opinions with a funny twist, or simply doing parodies of people, events, or movies. At the end of the show Mencia comes out for a minute with either one final skit or something else to say.

People criticize Mencia for exploiting stereotypes and say his statements are overly offensive. Carlos only does what everyone else thinks of certain races but are afraid to say. As for Mencia being offensive he is only speaking his mind. I find nothing wrong with that.

The show is not perfect. The skits can be not put together the best and sometimes Mencia does go over the line in his jokes. For the most part however it is a show where the comedian says what is on his mind no matter what the consequences and presents in in a humorous matter. So if you aren't afraid to laugh at stereotypes and see someone speak his mind and often say what you have wanted to say then watch Mind Of Mencia. However if you are easily offended you should not watch this show because you will be offended or worse yet you might even laugh.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags.

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

positive
From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? 

To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.

And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

SPOILER AHEAD! The mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.) is on the loose in a New England college town searching for a college student (Ramsey Ames) who is the reincarnation of his beloved Princess Ananka. Dull, slow (even at 65 minutes--it moves slower than the mummy!), indifferently acted, but the ending is worth waiting for. The mummy gets the girl (!!!!!) and she ages rapidly as the both slowly sink in a swamp. This is (I believe) the only time in a Universal monster movie that the monster got the girl! That aside, this is stricly amateur night. Probably the worst of the mummy sequels--and that's saying something!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that?
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I gave this a 10 because it's the best film of its kind...a good old-fashioned T & A film in the shadow and spirit of "Animal House." I saw this with a similar film called "Swap Meet" and both were good of their type...a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Let's be honest...there are more breasts in this movie than one could imagine for an R-rated movie. From beginning to end, they just seem to keep showing up on screen (sunbathing scenes, bedroom scenes and, of course, the climactic football game). Also, a memorable kissing booth (kiss me, Clutz!) Everybody seems to be having a good time in their roles (several Playboy Playmates, Danny Bonaduce, several familiar TV and movie actors, etc.). The only complaint I have to register is that Lisa London's character is called by her last name "O'Hara" and not a good 1970s name like "Olivia" (or even Ora or Ona or O...??!!). I saw this again in the late 1980s with my now ex-wife (pretty well endowed herself) and she couldn't believe I was actually enjoying the movie!! She was probably jealous!! Again, this movie is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon...just don't think too hard!
Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.

The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.

Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.

I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.

It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good "bad dog" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

The most notable feature of this film is the chemistry between the actors, the sense of camaraderie in their dialogue and dances. This typical rising-star musical has an overworked plot, even for 1944, but because of the actors it's still fun to watch. Hayworth isn't even that much of a dancer, but she has a lot of 'inexperienced' charm that fits her character. Kelly plays his usual caring authoritarian role while Silvers provides plenty of self-deprecation and laughs. The movie can also be very serious at times. Not a must-see, but recommended if you like the actors.
OK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.

I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.

Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.

More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?

So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film was both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'd recommend it to everyone who wants to be moved and challenged. Great acting, directing - and it is Canadian to boot! It is a film that families can enjoy and serious movie lovers. The locations in Ontario evoked such a sense of nostalgia for the era. With so much garbage and superficial hype selling these days it is great to see that someone could back an independent flick. For any family that has risen to overcome a challenge or an obstacle - be it financial or illness - this film strikes a resounding chord! It approaches the idea of the afterlife in a contemporary way - without cheaply capitalizing on all the "gohst" and supernatural themes that have become staples in Hollywood and the TV networks.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Good grief sethrp-1, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The girl was only seen briefly specifically BECAUSE she was the one who was going to kill herself...everyone else was so wrapped up in their own stories they didn't notice her, nor did we. As one of the other students says at the end - we're all so wrapped up in our own problems we don't notice what's going on for someone else. 

The director himself said if he had killed off one of the others, it would've suggested their problems were worse than someone else's. The whole point of killing Kelly was that she was unnoticed by all of us. Get it now??
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. "eXistenZ" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows. 

The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about "eXistenZ" is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. 

Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. 

In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.
The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.

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

negative