takojunior/llama_2_finetune_small huggingface dataset:
Question: Q: I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I enjoyed the story by itself, but the things that I learned about WWI Planes & boats, make this movie a must see. The close-ups on the plane & the torpedo boat & how they were used were completely new to me. I heartily recommend. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: "Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?

*1/2 (out of four) OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.

This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.

What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Answer: A: positive
Question: I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.

So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.

And eels? Come one, really!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
Choose from:
[1]. negative
[2]. positive
Answer: [1].
Question: 'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'

I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.

An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.

It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.

Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.
What is the sentiment of this review?
Answer: negative
Question: First off, this movie was a wild ride the whole way. The story of the training of the soldiers, fighting with their superiors, and in the end grouping together.

From the very beginning to the very end. This is one War Drama worth seeing if you are in for the constant cussing (at times beyond reason) and the horrors of what boot camp are.

The dynamics of how the actors interacted was quite amazing at times, and sometimes humorous. How Bozz (Colin Farrel) deals with Paxton (Matthew Davis) throughout the storyline, from camp to Tigerland, and even in the end helping him.

The innovative free-hand filming did add a certain taste or flavor to the film. Constant moving, constant action, and just constant confusion. At times, it was a help. Others, not so much.

Throughout the film, it was increasingly realistic. Some points in the film (the sex scenes in particular) seemed to be just a tad too realistic even though they added an effect to the movie that wouldn't have been there without them. it was a very gritty movie, through and through.

In my opinion, this is one of Colin Farrel's better movies (if not his top performance). The acting for every character was superb. 9/10 -sysnuk3r
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Choose from: A. negative. B. positive.
Answer: B.
Question: Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.
Answer: Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.
Question: Profanity, stupidity, self-indulgence, and bad acting all join forces for a true tour de force in terrible movie-making. Pesci's attempt to prove My Cousin Vinny was no fluke, shows the opposite instead. He is generally too lightweight and foulmouthed to handle the lead. A true must-miss!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Answer: negative
Question: Choose the correct sentiment from candidates:
OPTIONS:
1). negative
2). positive

TEXT:If The Lion King is a serious story about a young lion growing up to avenge his father's death, The Lion King 1 and a half is the total opposite, full of whimsy and cheer. The Lion King told the story from the side of Simba the young lion, 1 and a half is from the view of Timone and Pumbaa, a less than perfect duo made up of a meercat who left home because he could not dig tunnels without burying his friends and neighbors and a warthog who has an odor issue. The movie is a little short on substance, but Disney does a good job of filling time with various sketches starring Timone and Pumbaa as they "watch" the movie with us. My favorite is the sing-along that happens halfway through the movie, make sure you watch the bouncing bug! Disney has advertised 1 and a half as "the rest of the story," though it really isn't. It is just a different perspective of The Lion King, without all of the serious stuff that pervaded most of the second half of the original Disney classic. Credit Nathan Lane as Timone and Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa for their voice work, without their efforts, the movie may not have worked. The sing, they entertain, and they make us laugh. They also give us a reason to avoid a hot tub with a warthog.


Answer: 2).
Question: Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended.
Answer: positive
Question: I saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from NYC. After 30 minutes, I said to him," You've got to be kidding. Is this some sort of joke?" He thought it was good. I told him that I thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. "What was it supposed to be?" I asked. "A propaganda movie made for children?" The plot is stupid. The acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life, love or even afterlife, of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view...need some psychiatric help. Please, if someone tries to get you to stick this in your DVD or Video player, consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer...it won't destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. If they had made Razzies in the '40s, this would have won in every category. (PS. It also goes under the dubious sobriquet of "Stairway to Heaven.")
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
Answer: negative
Question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: There's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them. 

Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated "pro" wrestling match.

Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom. 

If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.

Not recommended.
OPT:
 -negative.
 -positive.
Answer: negative
Question: Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958.
Choose your answer. How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
Available choices:
 + negative;
 + positive;
Answer: positive
Question: This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.
Choose your answer. How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
Options are: a). negative. b). positive.
Answer: a).
Question: Review: For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.
Now, what is this review like?
Pick your answer from:
a). negative.
b). positive.

Answer: a).
Question: Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Pick from:
 --negative;
 --positive;...I think the answer is
Answer: negative
Question: Review: Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).

Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.

4 out of 10
Now, what is this review like?
Select from the following. + negative + positive

Answer: negative
Question: So, finally I know it exists. Along with the other Uk contributors on here I saw this on what MUST HAVE BEEN it's only UK screening in the 70's. I remembered the title, but got nowhere when I mentioned it to people. It scarred me (that's 2 'r's) but when you go to bed with doom whizzing about your brain and listening all around for impending terror, then isn't that what a TRULY CLASSIC horror movie is all about?? I can barely remember the intricacies of the movie, but what I do recollect is my shivering flesh and heightened senses. Can anyone confirm my suspicions that this is black and white? Again, if anyone has any info on how to obtain a copy of this, please get in touch...

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
Answer: positive
Question: Review: I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!
What is the sentiment of this review?
pick from the following. -negative; -positive;
Answer: negative
Question: Forget Neo and Bourne and all those half-baked made up modern heroes. They only look 12 year-oldish to please the wide audience of geeks that want to be their heroes. Since they cannot be Rambo or McClane or even Indiana Jones, Hollywood allowed a bunch of fakes that have no beard and yet fulfill teenagers wishes to see something that looks very much like an action flick.

However, their " action set-pieces " are just painful to watch and any girl may challenge their masculinity without question. This explains the recrudescence of oldies on our silver screens over the past few years. For better ( Rocky, Rambo ) or worse ( Die Hard 4 - where John McClane, brace yourselves.... had no beard !! )

I say it is high-time a new hero walked up and put their reign to an end. This " Largo Winch " movie is far from perfect, and perhaps too predictable at times, but at least Tomer Sisley delivered a very promising performance as an action-hero. And the only one time where he was weakened is when Mélanie Thierry shaved his beard ! I rest my case.

I didn't know it when I entered the theater room, but this might be the movie I've been waiting for a decade. For the first time in France since Belmondo, can a movie be both well- crafted and rooted in B-genre without blushing over its performance. In the meantime all we had to chew on was either a gigantic pile of dung or something too restricted to reach a wider audience... In other words it was " Le Pacte des Loups " or " Dobermann " ( I like Dobermann, mind you )... I believe " Largo Winch " has what it takes to be both popular and quality film-making.

I exited the theater room very pleased, and hungry for more.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Choose from:
 (a). negative;
 (b). positive;...I think the answer is
Answer: (b).
Question: I wanted to see Sarah Buffy on the big screen, so I first bought tickets and then checked the reviews at IMDb. I worried about seeing a bad movie. Well, I had fun watching the movie. Some parts, which obviously were meant to be scary, were actually quite humoristic, almost as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I don't consider this a bad movie. It's not a great movie either. Just a rather well made horror movie. It does not rely heavily on special effects, but on camera angles, acting, music. In my opinion, the acting was OK. Sarah did a very good job, quite convincing. The other actors were definitely not bad either, I liked Yoko.

The sets are nice (and I don't care that the sets are the exact same ones that were used in the Japanese original).

The scary moments were often predictable. But not always. I have seen quite some horror, and did not expect to be scared now, but it happened at least twice. Nice.

The movie had some nice scenes that were almost original, like the trails of rubbish, the simple special effects for he ghosts, the eyes of the boy, the cat that made eery noises, the gurgling of the dead boy and his mother.

Don't go if you want to see Sarah in another Buffy episode, because it is very different from her Buffy work, much more serious. Don't go if you only want to see movies that gather Oscar nominations. It's a good horror movie, enough suspense. I gave it a 7.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
Pick your answer from:
 a). negative
 b). positive
Answer: b).
Question: Write a negative movie review.
Answer: I remember watching the BSG pilot. I can describe that night exactly. I remember what chair I sat in. That show was magic. It came alive. I enjoyed the first two years of BSG. I enjoyed parts of the third year even, and I watched every episode of the fourth year, totally faithfully in great hopes that it would somehow turn around. Well, it didn't.

I watched the Caprica pilot and was enthralled. There was hope for something good here. Then I started watching the regular episodes, and they are getting more and more boring.

It's too obvious, too predictable. It reminds me of the droll political correctness of his last failed show, Virtuality.

Much of his line work on DS9 was good. When he focused on BSG in an organized way, it was good. This was especially true early on when they more or less followed the pattern of episodes set by the first BSG series. When they departed from that after meeting up with Admiral Cain and the Pegasus, it all went to pot. It was like he wrote the rest of the show without knowing where he was going.

Maybe it will improve. Maybe it was just a few weak initial episodes. But I am very, very nervous.