An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.

Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.

His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.

I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.

This guy has a grudge that won't end.

I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.

The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.

Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.

Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.

An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I'm intrigued by the strong sense of favour towards (or sympathy for!) Sinatra in the other reviews here. I've read elsewhere that Sinatra never seems to have forgiven anyone for *not* being cast as Sky Masterson.

OK, so who wouldn't want to be cast as Sky Masterson? it's a great part: the charismatic successful gambler who makes a grave mistake when he allows himself to be suckered into a bet, in which he must take Salvation Army Sargeant Sarah Brown on a date to Cuba, or lose. It's not the money it's the pride, but he and she meet their match. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit must juggle his long-suffering fiancee Adelaide with trying to find a spot for a craps game which will make him rich if it doesn't alienate his fiancee forever first.

The film started life as a series of short stories by Damon Runyon: that's his unique dialogue you hear, and those are his great character names, and that's his horse-racing/nightclub/late night gambling world. Then it became a musical, and you can't help but feel that in film form it never really left the stage. The camera is unusually static and the sets remarkably and not pleasingly flat and childlike. Fortunately the music is so great, I don't care that much.

My absolute favourite thing about this film, though, is the singing and acting of the two non-singers, Brando (as Sky) and Jean Simmons (as Sargeant Sarah Brown). Of course, putting pro singers into these roles would have produced better music; but what surely gets forgotten is that two such excellent actors brought something else to the party instead: what they lacked in vocal talent they more than made up for in gusto, acting ability, and pathos, pathos, pathos. You're with Sky as he argues with Sarah against reason, steadiness, pipes and safety. You enjoy Sarah's loosening up under the influence of Cuban "milk". You feel completely the suddenness and passion of their scene in the courtyard with bells ringing and an hour to go before the plane takes them home. As Sky rightly says, it's "chemistry". Pro singers be they Broadway belters or smooth crooners can't necessarily be relied on to make this happen. (And they certainly didn't.) I read somewhere that Brando criticised Sinatra for not putting all of himself into his role of Nathan Detroit. Sinatra in turn was infuriated by Brando's four-take acting method. As a Brando fan (does it show?!) I'm bound to take the other side, but I can't imagine that this film would have been the much-adored classic it is today if Brando and Simmons hadn't been in it with their wonderful chemistry; Brando's unpredictability; Simmons' face, all pink cheeks and brown hair, drunk and ashamed in a Cuban bar. Beautiful. I'll always want a copy of this film lying around in case I need to feel good again. You'll forgive me if give some of the Nathan (sleep)talking parts the 100% brush-off though, won't you? You won't? Oh, be quiet and have some more of Mindy's cheesecake!

An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago.