prompt
stringlengths 189
13.8k
| chosen
stringclasses 2
values | rejected
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.<br /><br />Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.<br /><br />Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or "that kind of music".<br /><br />If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have zero interest rap and in ghetto culture, i'm white and like classic rock, however, that did not stop me from appreciating this fantastic comedy. Its pretty much a sequel of This Is Spinal Tap in the sense that it is the same movie, just about rap instead or rock. Yet it's hilarious. There are many funny jokes but not without a few jokes that just fall flat. The characters are all very funny and believable. I watched just because it made me laugh at 3 a.m., and any movie that can do that warrants at least a test screening. One of the reasons why this movies was so funny was that it makes fun of rap from a different. Rap today is concerned with the wrong things and get by with studio noise and little talent. This movie comes from a time where rappers deserved more credit. Overall, it's a funny movie with many jokes about racism, sex and music culture among the more obvious themes of humor. This is highly recommend for any fan of This is Spinal Tap. They are essentially the same movie, just about different worlds, and yes, the same jokes work in both movies.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.<br /><br />The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.<br /><br />For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.<br /><br />The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.<br /><br />Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: 11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges.... <br /><br />Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out. <br /><br />The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......<br /><br />But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!<br /><br />I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have read the book a couple of times and this movie doesn't follow exactly as it should. I could let this slide, it is after all a movie. However I have serious issues with the setting of the movie. Nobody has seemed to mention that this movie and the book it is based on are based in actual events that happened in Nebraska. I live in Nebraska. I grew up in the town that this movie is supposed to be based on. First of all, the "small" town that is talked about as the setting, is the third largest city in the state. With a population of around 50,000. Grand Island is the largest city between Lincoln and Denver. Second the scenery for the movie is wrong. Grand Island is in the Platte river valley. Which is very flat with very few trees. I tried watching this movie, but it made me mad to see my hometown being treated so bad. This was a real event. Large sections of the city were wiped out. In the book they talk about riding bikes from Mormon Island to Fonner Park. I guess you could if you don't mind a 15 mile ride each way. For anyone who wants to know what really happened go here http://www.theindependent.com/twisters/
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is one powerful film. The first time I saw it, the Scottish accents made it tough for me to understand a lot and that ruined the viewing experience. I gave up on it but then acquired the DVD, used the English subtitles when I needed them, and really got into this movie, discovering just how good it is. It is excellent.<br /><br />The widescreen picture makes it spectacular in parts, with some wonderful rugged scenery and the story reminded me of Braveheart, an involving tale of good versus evil. Here, it's Liam Neeson (good) vs. Tim Roth (evil). Both do their jobs well.<br /><br />Few actors come across as despicable as Roth. Man, you really want to smack this guy in his arrogant, irritating puss. (He is so nasty and vile the sick critics love his character more than anyone else's here). Neeson is a man's man and a solid hero figure as Gibson was in Braveheart. Jessica Lange is strong in here as the female lead. The movie draws you in and gets you totally involved, so prepared to have an emotional experience viewing this.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.<br /><br />Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply "Black Noon" and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.<br /><br />I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.<br /><br />If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.<br /><br />If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.<br /><br />I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.<br /><br />This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.<br /><br />Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.<br /><br />Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.<br /><br />Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.<br /><br />Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.<br /><br />Avoid it like the veritable plague.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I don't often go out of my way to write comments, but for this I had to, just to warn anyone that might think that by watching this they will see a comedy. This doesn't come close. While the premise (change in colour/gender/whatever) is bad enough (and has been done, better, many times before)the actual transformation of two black guys into two white girls is one of the least convincing transformations ever put on screen. It would be bad enough if all that was required by the script was a change to white chicks. However the Wayans brothers are required to disguise themselves as two specific white women. As you will have guessed by now, they fail completely. I have seen drag queens without makeup make more convincing women than these two do with the best special effects and make-up people that Hollywood can provide. Its appalling. Add to the mix a basketball player built like a building, terrible dialogue and more plot holes than a golf course and this film hits a new personal low. And I like bad movies! Avoid like the plague.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.<br /><br />Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.<br /><br />With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Despite the title, The Sword Bearer, and the DVD cover (action/herioc poses of The Sword Bearer) this is not a super hero film.<br /><br />(Minor Spoilers) It follows the tale of Sasha, The Sword Bearer, who is cursed with having a retractable sword in his forearm. Cool you say, but no, this is real life. If you had this power as a child could you control it when, say, faced by a mad man, or when your mum's boyfriend is beating her. And if you don't control it, how do you cope with being a two time killer at the age of 12.<br /><br />This essentially is where Sasha is when we meet him. Wandering aimlessly after another killing (much like A Bout de Soufflé). He then meet Katya, and the pair fall instantly in love, providing Sasha with a real reason to live and try and changes his ways. However, his past is still chasing him, in the form of two police officers.<br /><br />That is essentially the story, and there is virtually no action on screen, though a lot if suggested.<br /><br />I really like this movie. Unlike many Hollywood 'super hero' films, we get very little back story, there is no bad guy (unless you count The Sword Bearer himself) abut there is a lot of heart and good character development.<br /><br />Worth checking out if you can find it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Strangely enough this movie never made it to the big screen in Denmark, so I had to wait for the video release. My expectations where high but they where in no way disappointed. As always with Ang Lee there is fantastic acting, an intelligent and thrilling plot that has you guessing right till the end and superb filming. Along with Unforgiven this is easily one of the two best westerns of the 90`s.<br /><br />People who expect something along the line of Mel Gibson in The Patriot(corny) or Braveheart(acceptable) will be sourly disappointed, all others who appreciate the above mentioned qualities will have a fantastic time watching it. 9 out of 10.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.<br /><br />But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.<br /><br />The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.<br /><br />So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.<br /><br />The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances. <br /><br />It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.<br /><br />I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.<br /><br />Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.<br /><br />As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there? <br /><br />The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen. <br /><br />It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1. <br /><br />That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.<br /><br />The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team. <br /><br />Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This sports a nice, deep cast but for a thriller you better deliver more than name actors and talk. The first third of this movie was nothing but talk, and more talk. Most of that was a bunch of women bitching about everything to each other. <br /><br />The first five listed actors in here are women so that verifies that it's really a "chick flick" and little else. This probably plays on the Lifetime network.<br /><br />There was a quick murder scene and then more talk. By halfway through, they had lost me. <br /><br />By the way, Sally Field looked about 15 years old in here.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white "Pomeranian" navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.<br /><br />But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.<br /><br />Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one "Lola", an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank. <br /><br />It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of "instruction" about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help "teach him" how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.<br /><br />I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.<br /><br />The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent. <br /><br />Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,"consistency"! Thy name is not "screenwriting" necessarily!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.<br /><br />There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.<br /><br />I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.<br /><br />Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.<br /><br />By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.<br /><br />Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.<br /><br />Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has "Attack of the Monsters" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!"
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.<br /><br />Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Being the prototype of the classical Errol Flynn adventure movie and having a good story as well as two more brilliant co-stars in Maureen O'Hara (what an exquisite beauty!) and Anthony Quinn, I can only recommend this movie to all those having even the slightest liking for romance and adventure.<br /><br />Hollywood at its best!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat ("I'm going home in a bag!"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning. <br /><br />If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!<br /><br />Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).<br /><br />-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....<br /><br />-Ramsay "RC" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a "plane" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.<br /><br />Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I got to say that Uma Thurman is the sexiest woman on the planet. this movie was uber cute and I mean uber cute. It had all the "sex" content that most Ivan Reitman comedies have but with something a lil extra, CHEMISTRY. Uma and Luke both have this awkrawrd but believable chemistry that seem to transcend in each scene . Both seem to create this odd, twisted and interesting relationship with powerful "sexual" tension that you laugh until you can't feel your face anymore. Anna Farris and the rest of the supporting cast seem to play off each other's roles perfectly and even Wanda Sykes' rather small role will keep you laughing. Though these kind of comedies aren't for everybody, but I have to say I went with a person that doesn't usually enjoy these films and he was laughing like crazy. This movie is certainly not for everyone. especially younger children since some moments are little too...well lets say ADULT for younger viewers. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, tough the ending I found was a little weak compared to the rest of the film. (3 1/2* out of 5*)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Boring children's fantasy that gives Joan Plowright star billing but little to do. Sappy kids pursue their dreams. Frankie wants to be a ballerina and a baseball player (yuk) while best-friend Hazel runs for mayor---she's 13! Totally pedestrian in every way, plus the added disadvantage of syrupy performances by the girls as well as the baseball boys. Certainly a lesser effort for Showtime---no limits?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.<br /><br />Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.<br /><br />So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia).
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.<br /><br />The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. <br /><br />Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.<br /><br />Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes of it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have one word to someup this movie, WOW! I saw "Darius Goes West" at the Tribeca Film Festival. People in the theater were sobbing. This movie shows the hardships that Darius sufferes with Muscular Dystrophy. The movie was very well done and really made you part of the movie, I WAS SO emotionally moved by the movie because it made us remember that we are very fortunate to be perfectly healthy, some people in this world are less fortuate then us. And sometimes we should give them a had and help them, to the very end. I would give them ten stars, they gave Darius a had when they weren't asked to, they did't do it for the money they did it for a friend in need, Darius, the world should know, Darius went west.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.<br /><br />"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.<br /><br />The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).<br /><br />"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I really can't believe this movie is not in the IMDB worst 250, it is absolutely terrible. When I originally saw it I remember talking about it in a college class and two other people had also seen it. We were all telling other class members not to see it because it was so horrible. By the time we were done some others wanted to see it just because they could not believe anything was as bad as we were saying it was. Don't be like them, just pass this by. I'm sure everyone involved with this movie would also prefer you never see them in this movie.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: along with it's partner, this is the greatest piece of animation ever created. the images and styles are amazing, and match perfectly with the story which is a brilliantly realistic reinterpretation of our own world, where is has been, and where it could go. quite affecting and sometimes painful to watch, it it a masterpiece of the visual art.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I'd heard of Eddie Izzard, but had never seen him in action. I knew he was a transvestite, and when I saw he was on HBO one night last summer, I put it on, not knowing how my husband would react. Well, he blew us away. He's better than Robin Williams ever was. He has total control of the audience; when he does the 'Englebert is dead - no he's not', routine, the audience doesn't know what to think by the end. God as James Mason is also an inspired touch, and his version of the Python Spanish Inquisition as carried out by the Church of England - 'Cake or Death?' is priceless. My jaws were aching from laughter by the end of the show. We scoured the TV listings for months after that to be able to see him again, and were lucky enough to tape him the next time he came on. If you get the chance to see this show, cancel everything and tape it, you won't be disappointed.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.<br /><br />I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.<br /><br />10/10
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughable<br /><br />But don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the<br /><br />70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line " If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day " . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.<br /><br />For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.<br /><br />More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.<br /><br />So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.<br /><br />So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.<br /><br />The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.<br /><br />All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.<br /><br />What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit.<br /><br />"Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.<br /><br />The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.<br /><br />The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.<br /><br />Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.<br /><br />Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster".
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A Matter of Life and Death, what can you really say that would properly do justice to the genius and beauty of this film. Powell and Pressburger's visual imagination knows no bounds, every frame is filled with fantastically bold compositions. The switches between the bold colours of "the real world" to the stark black and white of heaven is ingenious, showing us visually just how much more vibrant life is. The final court scene is also fantastic, as the judge and jury descend the stairway to heaven to hold court over Peter (David Niven)'s operation. <br /><br />All of the performances are spot on (Roger Livesey being a standout), and the romantic energy of the film is beautiful, never has there been a more romantic film than this (if there has I haven't seen it). A Matter of Life and Death is all about the power of love and just how important life is. And Jack Cardiff's cinematography is reason enough to watch the film alone, the way he lights Kim Hunter's face makes her all the more beautiful, what a genius, he can make a simple things such as a game of table tennis look exciting. And the sound design is also impeccable; the way the sound mutes at vital points was a decision way ahead of its time<br /><br />This is a true classic that can restore anyone's faith in cinema, under appreciated on its initial release and by today's audiences, but one of my all time favourites, which is why I give this film a 10/10, in a word - Beautiful.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A bus full of passengers is stuck during a snow storm. The police have closed the bridge--saying it's unsafe and they are stuck in a little café until the road has been cleared. However, after a while, their boredom is turned to concern, as it seems that one of the passengers was NOT originally on the bus and may just be an alien!! This leads to a conclusion that is ironic but also rather funny in a low-brow way.<br /><br />This is another of the fun episodes of The Twilight Zone. Instead of the typical twists or social commentary, this one features no lasting message. However, it's also very and watchable, so who cares?! Exactly WHAT occurs you'll just have to see for yourself.<br /><br />By the way, this one stars John Hoyt--a face most of you will recognize from countless old TV shows and movies. In almost every case, he played a real grouch (like Charles Lane during the same era), but boy did I love seeing him--as he perfected the grouchy persona and was kind of funny at the same time.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:<br /><br />Stanley and Stella in "Breaking the Ice". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.<br /><br />Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.<br /><br />I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.<br /><br />Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)<br /><br />Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at "The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out "Tunes of Glory" for something worth making, that has something to say.<br /><br />Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.<br /><br />When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.<br /><br />The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.<br /><br />The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: All right I recently got a chance to rent this and watch Santa Claus conquers the martains. Although the children were much more sadistic in SCCTM, I would have to say that Santa Claus was a much worse movie. As a spanish assignment in Spanish 5 we all had to watch it. I'll tell you, usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food, but not for this movie. Everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil Mr. Pitch was going to do next. Would Merlin help Santa Claus!?! or would his robot reindeer come and save the day? I would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish I have ever seen and I love it for that. :D
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: One of the best movies for all ages. You will never be able to look at LION KING again without thinking of the extra history this movie adds. Nearly 40 years old, I watched this with my wife and two sons after work tonight & I have not laughed & enjoyed a movie so much in a long time.<br /><br />Take time out and watch this with the kids. It will remind you of how Disney used to be when you were a young one.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.<br /><br />Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie "credible" and interesting.<br /><br />I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert "Madame Bovary" yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.<br /><br />In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a "high" vote with an average of 6.8/10.<br /><br />So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like "dark movie" with "strange and non sense story".
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I wasn't really hoping for much when I went to see this. After Mst3king the heck out of JasonX with some friends though, I was hoping for a similar experience here.<br /><br />Unfortunately the movie took itself way too seriously. Do I care about Jason's problems? I'm sorry no. There are a legion Ft13th movies that cover that anyway. At at then end of the day, he's an undead serial killer, I'm just not going to get that sympathetic.<br /><br />Freddy was by far the most interesting aspect of the movie with the hallucinations and what not, but unfortunately they were few and far between and by the end of the movie, it had degenerated into a bad episode of celebrity deathmatch...only not funny.<br /><br />
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: On the night of his bachelor party, Paul Coleman (Jason Lee) meets the gorgeous dancer Becky (Julia Stiles) in the bar, they drink a lot together and in the next morning, he wakes up with her on the bed. His future mother-in-law calls him and informs that his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) might be arriving in his apartment, and he desperately asks Becky to leave his place in a hurry. Sooner, he finds that her has crabs, and later, in the preparation of his wedding dinner party, he realizes that Becky is the cousin of Karen. This is the beginning of a very funny comedy, with hilarious situations. The first attraction of this movie certainly is the central trio of actresses and actor. Julia Stiles and Selma Blair, who are excellent actresses and extremely gorgeous, and Jason Lee, who is amazingly funny, have good performances. I laughed a lot along the story, but there are some scenes that are really hilarious. For example, when Paul finds Becky in his bed; when he finds her paints; his imagination in many situations; in the drugstore, trying to buy and get explanations about the crab medicine; most of the scenes of his neighbor, the minister; when Karen calls the department store; or when the police finds a suspect of assaulting Paul. I could number many other scenes, but better off the reader rent or buy this movie and have lots of fun. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil):"Louco Por Elas" ("Crazy For Them")
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: S.I.C.K. really stands for So Incredibly Crappy i Killed myself. There was absolutely no acting to speak of. The best part of the whole production was the art work on the cover of the box.The budgeting of this movie was sufficient. The filming was sub sesame street. The production looks like that of the underground filming for mob hits. The props used in this movie were stolen from a clothing store. The ending was so predictable you should fast forward to the last 5 minutes and laugh. If there is a book out there for this movie I'm sure it's better. I would avoid this at all costs. I did enjoy the intimate scenes they made the whole movie worth it. just kidding.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: If this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Its time to pay tribute to the great Charton Heston after his recent passing but this film is not the one. His other films of a past generation were BEN HUR, THE TEN COMMANDENTS, OMEGA MAN and PLANET OF THE APES were his better works.<br /><br />This film made in 1973 attempts to prophesies a future earth , in 2022, that is so overpopulated that the human race has been manipulated by authorities to eat a universally produced food product called "Soylent Green" which is manufactured with Human flesh. This bizarre and implausible film was as ridiculous at the time of its release as it is now and assumes India's population which would be about 2 billion by that stage would be then meat eaters without knowing it.<br /><br />Charlton Heston's character this supers secret international conspiracy that world powers have concocted to meet the nutritional demands of overpopulation by using cannibalism.<br /><br />Unfortunately for the producers of this film the Green message they deliver is not the Greens Party of today's ethos thank god. Cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous populations in New Zealand , Fiji and Borneo up until only 40 years before this film was made but has been long abandoned by human civilization.<br /><br />Another silly prediction in the film is that women become quasi sex slaves turning back the tide of radical feminism which was on the rise in 1972 when this film was made.<br /><br />The film was stupid then and is as silly now but does contain a very unmemorable last film performance by the late and great Edward G. Robinson but still no a valid reason to revisit the film other than for academic reasons.<br /><br />This is a dud of a film and I wouldn't even recommend it to baby boomers or Charlton Heston fans. All the other reviews of this film I have read all sound the same referring to a dystopian society in the future of which the centralised theme only seems to involve the USA in which an ecological disaster has occurred.<br /><br />The only merit in the film is that earth does face overpopulation.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.<br /><br />I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.<br /><br />In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?<br /><br />[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]<br /><br />The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!<br /><br />The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")<br /><br />What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.<br /><br />Rating: 3
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant "Bruck-buster" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see "The Medusa Touch" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced "Harper" and "The Long Goodbye"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated "L.A. Confidential" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for "Gandhi") and an international cast, I found "The Medusa Touch" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider "Carrie" and the underrated "The Fury" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.<br /><br />It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.<br /><br />Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.<br /><br />Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.<br /><br />Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.<br /><br />The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.<br /><br />One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.<br /><br />It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The Power of Kangwon Province is director Hong Sang-Soo's second feature effort and clearly much of what he started with in his previous film returns in this film, including the multiple connected narratives (in this case, two), and stories of troubled or troubling relationships, as well as a potent dosage of irony.<br /><br />One thing that's clearly reduced from his previous work is the flights of fancy that included elements of surrealism. However, this film also contains a single moment of surreal that strikes a contrast against the otherwise rather realistic depiction found therein. The two stories follow a young woman who goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with her friends, only to find herself drawn to a stranger, the second about a man who also goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with his friend and struggles with his relationship woes.<br /><br />Again, Hong shows a strong understanding of irony and of the flaws in human nature and yet I don't think he's entirely unsympathetic when it comes to his characters, drawing in just enough compassion to offset the criticism he draws with his irony. I think the think I've come to love about Hong's films is that they just feel so real, especially the complex and conflicted characters. Not to say that every person is a hypocrite or suffering from confused feelings, but rather, that these characters he and the actors present, feel fully developed and believable.<br /><br />This is not a fast moving film. There's a lot of lingering and like the previous film, things don't always connect immediately so patience does pay off and in surprising ways. There doesn't appear to be any element of the film that isn't intentionally placed in the film and it's made my a little hyper-aware of various seemingly extra characters as they get dragged into the mix as the film progresses.<br /><br />Power is an excellent film that manages to inject a level of personal emotion, regret, longing into a story that highlights irony and the fallibility of human decision-making. It's a rather hard balance to keep and it's surprising how Hong manages to pull it off twice in a row. Technical production values have gotten much better since the first film and direction has gotten steady and clear. This film doesn't pack the same emotional wallop that the first does, but gains a lot in its assured exploration and the refinement really helps tighten the overall vision. Great viewing for art cinema lovers. 8/10.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: 2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.<br /><br />I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.<br /><br />I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.<br /><br />This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.<br /><br />You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.<br /><br />In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.<br /><br />Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.<br /><br />Not that anything else was really working anyway.<br /><br />The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is a bad movie. Not one of the funny bad ones either. This is a lousy bad one. It was actually painful to watch. The direction was awful,with lots of jumping around and the green and yellow hues used throughout the movie makes the characters look sickly. Keira Knightly was not convincing as a tough chick at all,and I cannot believe Lucy Liu and Mickey Rourke signed on for this criminal waste of celluloid. The script was terrible and the acting was like fingernails across a chalkboard. If you haven't seen it,don't. You are not missing anything and will only waste two hours of your life watching this drivel .I have seen bad movies before and even enjoyed them due to their faults. This one is just a waste of time.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Sophia Loren plays Aida, in one of the worst films of all time. She can't lipsync. In terms of production values, the film is so bad, that at one point, while Loren is mouthing "O Patria Mia," she leans onto what looks to be a stone wall for support, and the canvas set billows and shakes.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.<br /><br />If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Yes, the first "Howling" was a classic. A rather good werewolf movie that I admit started slowly, but gained momentum along the way to have a rather good finish then the anchorwoman changed into a cute werewolf only to be gunned down on camera. Yes that made for an entertaining horror movie to be sure...well forget all of that as this movie has nothing to do with that film. Oh sure, they kind of make it out that the anchor woman is the same and that her brother or something is wanting to find out what and why things went down as they did, but they go from the little cozy retreat from the first movie to Transylvania or somewhere here where they must battle evil magician werewolves or something. I often wonder what in the world Christopher Lee was doing in this movie, however I read the trivia here where it says he had never been in a werewolf movie before, but still read the script before you take a role. Maybe you could have gotten into "An American Werewolf in London" hell that could have been possible. It was set in London after all. Heck, werewolves do not seem to figure much into this movie except for a rather bizarre and prolonged sex scene. In fact, the most memorable death in this movie for me was when the one gal started talking loudly and this one dude's ear's started bleeding.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic
it's sappy
it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.<br /><br />Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go
"OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa." Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.<br /><br />As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.<br /><br />With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of "Silver Spoons", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend
at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |