takojunior/llama_2_finetune_small huggingface dataset:
Question: Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.
Answer: The movie is absolutely silly.

But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.

I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.

Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.

Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema.
Question: This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.

I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Pick your answer from: 1. negative; 2. positive;...I think the answer is
Answer: 1.
Question: Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Answer: negative
Question: This movie is one of my all time favorites. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr...what a cast. Not to mention Sam Jaffe as Gunga Din. Drama, action, adventure and comedy all rolled up into one. The final battle scene still to this day gives me chills and the ending always leaves me in tears. If you haven't seen it, I'd strongly recommend it.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Available choices:
 1). negative
 2). positive...I think the answer is
Answer: 2).
Question: Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Choices: a). negative; b). positive;...I think the answer is
Answer: a).
Question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah.
Available choices: (I) negative; (II) positive;
Answer: (II)
Question: Man has been to the farthest reaches of the earth and now he is traveling to new worlds. But with new worlds come ancient evils... the vampires of space. And not just a handful but entire tribes. In this film (which I saw as "Bloodsuckers" but I guess also goes as "Vampires Wars") we see what happens when the imperialist earthlings meet the imperialist vampires.

I will make this review very short because it's undeserving of a good review. The best I can say for this film is it has a good cast of b-list and upcoming stars. Natassia Malthe was Quintana, and was far more attractive here than in "Bloodrayne 2". Michael Ironside is Muco, and is always a fan favorite (as I say, he's the poor man's Jack Nicholson). And we even get Carrie-Ann Fleming as "Damian's wife", who horror fans will now recognize as the eponymous Jenifer from Dario Argento's "Jenifer". So this movie, as bad as it is, isn't without some names attached... but the same can be said of Uwe Boll's work.

The concept of the military tracking and killing vampires in space isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it easily falls into the realm of "cheese" and this film falls hard. The acting, especially from the vampires, is over the top and I just didn't find the explanations of their existence very convincing. Worst of all, the vampire tribes have the names "Voorhess" and "Leatherfaces". I understand this was supposed to be a clever reference for the horror fans, but it wasn't clever at all. It just sounded dumb and out of place (unlike the much more subtle references in James Gunn's "Slither", such as naming stores after lesser-known horror directors).

That's all I want to say. If you can stand lots of cheese (on this day I couldn't and I'm from Wisconsin) and want to see average actors with poor costumes fight vampires in space (although "space" looks a lot like any other forest on earth) check this one out, if you can find it. I don't personally recommend this when you can watch other cheesy vampires films (Jon Carpenter's "Vampires") or other cheesy space movies. Or maybe even some good ones. But, hey, do your thing.
Choose your answer. How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPT:
 --negative;
 --positive;
Answer: negative
Question: I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. 

Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. 

That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! 

Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Answer: negative
Question: this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.

 Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)

 even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.

 this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy"
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
Answer: positive
Question: Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A great British Indy movie! Fantastic chemistry between the 3 main characters make for some hilarious drug-fuelled set pieces that Cheech and Chong would be proud of. Great to see Phil Daniels back on the big screen (even if he has swapped sides since Quadrophenia!) and Gary Stretch is surprisingly good and a treat for the ladies! Loved the final fight scene with it's nod to Zulu and now I know what happened to Arthur Brown after he set himself on fire on Top of the Pops!...he's not acting....he really is a bona-fide British hippie!!! You don't have to be a biker to enjoy this and it's straight into my Friday night post-pub repeat viewing collection. 

Give this film a go and you won't be disappointed.
Answer: positive
Question: Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: No message. No symbolism. No dark undercurrents.Just a wonderful melange of music, nostalgia and good fun put to-gether by people who obviously had a great time doing it. It's a refreshing antidote to some of the pretentious garbage being ground out by the studios. Of course ANYTHING with the incomparable Judi Dench is worth watching. And Cleo Laine's brilliant jazz singing is a bonus. This lady is in the same league as the late Ella. This goes on my movie shelf to be pulled out again anytime I feel the need for a warm experience and a hearty good natured chuckle. Just a wonderful film!
Answer: positive
Question: Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable
Choose your answer. How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
Pick your answer from: + negative. + positive.
Answer: positive
Question: Review: When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.

Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:

1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period? 

2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.

3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.

4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.

5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.

6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.

Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS: (a). negative; (b). positive;
Answer: (a).
Question: this is really films outside (not in a motel room). With real costumes (not only strings and swimsuits). You have to see this movie. it's the only porn movie I know that is worth watching between the sex scenes.

Bon Cinema

Laurent
Choose your answer. How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
pick from the following.
 A). negative;
 B). positive;
Answer: B).
Question: Review: Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPT:
[i] negative;
[ii] positive;
Answer: [i]
Question: I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
Answer: negative
Question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,,
OPT:
 -- negative
 -- positive
Answer: negative
Question: Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.

Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.

This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.

Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Choices: i. negative ii. positive
Answer: i.
Question: My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.

From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the "Big one" that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, "borrowing" scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.

My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)



Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
OPTIONS:
[A]. negative;
[B]. positive;...I think the answer is
Answer: [A].