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: This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.<br /><br />This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy 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 had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.<br /><br />Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 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: Offbeat and rather entertaining sleeper concerning two very different brothers who are both not only so-called "fire starters" (think Stephen King's snore-fest of a book with the same name), but also forever at odds with each other over a woman who has a rather nasty habit of being a pyromaniac! Good special effects (especially towards the end), quirky performances from a pretty talented trio of actors and topped by a really interesting and oddly appropriate soundtrack ultimately make "Wilder Napalm" a unique treat of a film to watch...if you can find it that is! On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to snatch it up (so to speak) from the two-dollar bin at my local video-rental store. (*** out of *****)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.<br /><br />The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.<br /><br />It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.<br /><br />However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Film can be a looking glass to see the world in a new light. Good Night and Good Luck, for instance, offered parallels to modern judgement-without-evidence and encroachments on freedom. It is easier to examine a moral problem when it is not too close to home: by putting it in a fictional or historic context removed from our immediate situation. With pornography, we consider ourselves 'enlightened' and our forefathers to be hidebound by quaint ideas - usually involving fire and brimstone, but the definition of what is obscene can easily fall prey to ignorance and unscientific interpretation instead of evidence. Bettie Page was a cult icon of an era which included not just McCarthyism but the banning of comics (such as Tales from the Crypt) on the basis that they would turn youths into half-mad juvenile delinquents. This film, developed from key questions raised in her life, poses dilemmas that are as relevant today as back in 1950.<br /><br />Our film opens with two key scenes. In the first, we see well-dressed, respectable looking men in a seedy bookshop. One of them asks for pictures of women in kinky boots and being restrained - then turns out to be an undercover cop conducting a sting. The second scene shows Bettie Page, waiting to be called as a witness, looking quite demure, as if she had just come out of church.<br /><br />The first 50mins are in black & white. Old fashioned film effects such as wipes and fades add to the sense that we are watching a film from bygone years, as do the mannerisms of the cast, skilfully recreated 1950s scenes, contemporaneous slang phrases and the terse dialogue associated with film-making of the period. Archive footage is frequently intercut - which will delight many and irritate others. In keeping with its theme, the movie is almost a collection of different types of photography-in-motion, and the older clips of fabulous beaches and landmarks juxtapose well against Bettie's classic poses hearken back to an age of 'health & nature' magazines . . . although I admit that if you are not captivated by the story you may find the effect a bit choppy.<br /><br />Very soon, we go into flashback. Bettie escapes a Depression Years downtrodden life in Nashville, enlivened only with church singing and soul-saving, and goes alone to make her own way. After her initial success, her modelling work splits into two strands: the mainstream glamour work focussing on her over-the-rainbow smile, and the 'specialist interest' photos involving dressing up in high-heeled boots and light bondage gear. In an earlier audition (reminiscent of a scene with Naomi Watts' character in Mulholland Drive - who was also called Betty), she gives a performance that is full of emotion, contrasting with her normal animated, cheerful (but ultimately bland) day-to-day expression. Is part of her still unfulfilled? Bettie is frequently rejected in auditions once they realise she is the well-known pin-up girl. But we have never been asked to feel sorry for Bettie Page: her abusive childhood is quickly referenced and skipped over; when she is raped by four hometown lads, we see only the threat and then Bettie recovering and surviving, picking herself up in deserted woodland, and putting on the brave face of someone who refuses to lie down and die.<br /><br />Although no nudity is involved, it's Bettie's special interest photos that eventually arouse trouble. When we go back to the court, the opinions of a clergyman on the corrupting influence of such photos are taken as evidence. A psychologist authoritatively says how the photos lead to 'suicide, murder and psychosis' in youngsters who are exposed to them (presumably not in that order). Eventually a star witness explains how his son's life came to an end as a result of such photos - 'being 'trussed up like that'. It is not made clear how being 'trussed up' causes death). The text accompanying a series of Bettie's photographs in a magazine tell how she was forced to endure 'terrible agonies' with the fetish restraints (the audience knows that she actually found them quite hilarious and that the wordings, like the photos themselves, were pure dramatisations). After a 12hr wait, Bettie is told her evidence - she is the one person who could state definitively that she was not photographed in agony - will 'not be required'. The 'horrors' of the photos have been proved.<br /><br />If this all sounds like the dark ages which we have left, consider a recent (2003) incident in which an Ann Summers advert was banned. It said, "for fashion and passion whip along to your local store," with a photograph of a woman's back. She's wearing a bra and thong and her hands are handcuffed behind her back. The lingerie and sex toys company, that targets female consumers (and also supports charities fighting domestic violence) said its adverts aimed, "to give women sexual confidence and always showed women in control of their sexuality." One might conclude that the prejudice and ignorance of the Betty Page investigations still holds currency.<br /><br />Bettie's religious views are integral to the story, just as the concept of sin is integral to Christianity and contributes to the 'forbidden' nature of sexual enjoyment frequently prevalent in the UK and US - as opposed to the more factual approach found in continental Europe. It could be argued the formulae of sin and redemption, and "being saved", are even reflected in mating patterns that perpetuate traditional male dominance. A policeman making a friendly (but sexually motivated) approach to Bettie outside the courtroom offers to 'save' her from loneliness. The knight-in-shining-armour might be chivalrous, but it also assumes a woman in need of rescue.<br /><br />Love it or hate it, The Notorious Bettie Page is an unusual and extraordinary film, and a moral wake-up call for those that heed it. There is excellent ensemble acting, and Gretchen Mol, as Bettie, is remarkable as the whole film succeeds or falls on her powerful performance.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop. <br /><br />"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it! <br /><br />Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself. <br /><br />It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?<br /><br />The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?<br /><br />I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?<br /><br />There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.<br /><br />Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Leon was fantastic as always, this time playing Little Richard in his early years. The movie showed a fully fleshed out Little Richard without neglecting to fill the show with lots of great music. My only complaint is that the ending was a little abrupt - I was hoping for a 2-parter!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.<br /><br />Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the "demons" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.<br /><br />This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: "This is our job now, son. We've got to do this." When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, "If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this." The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.<br /><br />The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Review: After a thrilling set of two, we get the final installment. Here's my take:<br /><br />The Bourne Ultimatum has it all. We have Jason Bourne(Matt Damon) on the coattails of the ones who know everything. He has been running for too long. This time, it ends.<br /><br />The Bourne Ultimatum has a great plot, awesome writing, fantastic direction, suspense, and some of the best action of the summer. Matt Damon delivers possibly his best performance to date. He has the conviction and swelling desire of the troubled assassin.<br /><br />There are some intelligent humor here and some fine suspense. The reactions to certain events will have you either laughing(in a good way) or cheering on. (or both) I heard a lot of intelligent laughter in the theater and lots of clapping. The audience was loving it.<br /><br />The Bourne Ultimatum delivers all in a nicely gift-wrapped package. All of the goods and then some. This is, in my opinion the best movie this summer.<br /><br />The Last Word: Excellent conclusion. The best of the trilogy. This is how summer movie thrillers should be done. I love the Bourne trilogy.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Gone With The Wind" is one of the most overrated movies in history. It is a film loved by mothers, grandmothers, and shut-ins who go to the movies once every five years. As a zombie movie, it blows. There isn't a shambling corpse in sight, and it's terribly light in the gore department. "Zombie 3", on the other hand, is big on shambling corpses and quite generous with its blood-spilling -- therefore, it is better than "Gone With the Wind". It is also not overrated. Most reviewers are under no delusions that it is rubbish. It is, however, not boring rubbish. After a terrorist steals a virus, he drops it while being pursued by a helicopter, and the chemicals leak into the ground. The terrorist, who has been exposed to the nasty concoction, hides in a hotel room where he slowly morphs into a flesh-eating zombie. One of his first victim's is a cleaning lady. Once she's bitten, Lucio Fulci's brand of hell breaks loose. As usual for a Fulci flick, the acting is atrocious, the storyline is riddled with plot holes, and the gore is plentiful. Turns out the film was directed by Fulci and Bruno Mattei, so that explains its rather schizophrenic nature. It is badly shot, too, poorly edited, and the sound design is flat. Still, it is saved by its gleeful adherence to the goriest of murders and its impatient pacing. Definitely worth picking up if you're an undead completest. Or don't like "Gone With The Wind", undoubtedly the worst zombie movie of all 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 worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.<br /><br />Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.<br /><br />The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.<br /><br />Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Jean Luc Godard's Marxist polemic is as close to unwatchable a film as you're likely to see from an internationally respected filmmaker. Bits of political theater, mind-numbingly boring and interminable, are interspersed with the making of "Sympathy for the Devil", featuring the Rolling Stones in the studio.<br /><br />The process of the song's development, from Mick Jagger playing a demo on acoustic guitar, to the backing vocals being recorded towards the end, is fascinating, and it's worth renting this film just to see the bits with the Stones. Almost half the movie is devoted to this, so thanks to the miracle of chapter stops, you can skip all the bizarre political skits and just watch the Stones put a song together.<br /><br />When I had this on laserdisc, I valiantly attempted to watch it all, but I don't see how anyone could get through it. I finally gave up and just chapter-skipped my way to the Stones segments.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by<br /><br />Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. <br /><br />And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. <br /><br />It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). <br /><br />So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. <br /><br />It rates a 3.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right. <br /><br />Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative. <br /><br />I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie<br /><br />Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see!
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 short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.<br /><br />I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.<br /><br />If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.
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 probably the best horror film made since Ed Wood died. <br /><br />I can't spoil the ending, because I have absolutely no idea what happened. I'll try my best, though. There are some kind of lesbian vampires, but they keep swapping bodies, so any character might or might not be the character you're supposed to think it is, or it might be a lesbian vampire. <br /><br />Sound confusing? It's not as confusing as you might think, since none of the characters make any sense to begin with. There's no plot, no character development, and random people show up, speak a few lines, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. There are also zombies, who are *possibly* the enemies of the vampires, but there's also a dream-within-a-dream kind of sequence in a mental hospital, so maybe none of this actually happened, and it's all the main character's hallucination. <br /><br />The upside? Both of the lead girls take their shirts off briefly. The special effects are simply mind-boggling (I particularly liked the incredibly slow, awkward fight sequences). Everyone has a really silly Canadian accent, which adds to the general level of hilarity. <br /><br />Well worth the price of rental. We laughed until we cried.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The obvious parallels between Walt Disney's charming fantasy Bedknobs and Broomsticks and C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia are pretty apparent. There are more coincidences here than comparing Bedknobs and Broomsticks than with Mary Poppins even though a lot of the same creative talent went into the two Disney films.<br /><br />Like The Chronicles of Narnia it involves some English children leaving London during the blitz and coming to live in the country. And those kids have to deal with a world of magic. But unlike C.S. Lewis the Rawlins kids have the magic invade their world and help defeat the people making a mess of it in the here and now. No retreating to a fantasy kingdom like the Pevensie kids.<br /><br />No heavy duty philosophy here from Walt Disney except maybe it's not a good thing to mess with witches even apprentice ones like Angela Lansbury who learn their magic from a charlatan like David Tomlinson. Ms. Lansbury didn't get to be one of the most bankable of performers for nothing. She carries her own brand of magic that even the special effects boys at Disney couldn't top. And they won an Oscar for the Magic Kingdom in that department for this film.<br /><br />Two performers made their farewell to films in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Tessie O'Shea played her last role in this film, she graced many a film in the United Kingdom as one of their best loved music hall performers. And that grand character actor Reginald Owen as the retired general who leads the Old Home Guard in war and in song bids adieu to film audiences around the world.<br /><br />The team of Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman who wrote the score for Mary Poppins wrote a good and serviceable one here. The Age Of Not Believing was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to the Theme from Shaft. Personally though I do like David Tomlinson's tribute to that most colorful of London streets, Portabello Road.<br /><br />Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fine fantasy film that still holds up well after almost 40 years. Imagine what it would be like with computer generated graphics.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is. <br /><br />The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.<br /><br />Maybe next time knox.<br /><br />Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.<br /><br />But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie. Don't get me wrong I am not condemning the movie; it is such a wonderful movie and walked out of the cinema with a lump in my throat. We need to understand Mahatma's spiritual standing, he is a true spiritual leader. Only a fully enlightened man could possibly detach himself from his loved ones. A man with such caliber leads his family and followers by example. According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father. When things went wrong with Harilall, Mahatma could remain calm and accepted that his son is a big tragedy. <br /><br />Had it been any other parents, they would have compromised their values to assist the son to get on his feet. Mahatma didn't do that, he is true leader who leads by example.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy THE MOVIE is about dolls that come to life when the humans aren't around. In this adventure they must rescue a kidnapped french doll named Babette from the captain of pirates. On their way they journey though Deep Dark Woods, Taffy Pit, and even Looney Land. Will the aide of their new friend The Camel With Wrinkled Knees help them or just slow them down with his hallucinations of his friends leaving him? How will they escape the Kookoo king and his henchmen!? What will their owner Marcella say when she sees her 7th birthday present doll gone along with her other toys? Delightful surprises await the two adventurers.<br /><br />All scores are out of a possible 10: Story: 8 - Very cute. Dolls that come to life when the master isn't around. Not just that because they go out into many many different places, but they are in an imaginary world so anything can happen. Meeting new characters, going to different places finding new friends, its great. The characters all work so well in this too and who doesn't love pirates?! Acting: 8 - Every character suits their voice so well. Specifically the Marlon Brando taffy pit enemy, The Greed. The french doll has a very uptight french accent, the evil Hitler-esquire king Kookoo (whos got hair that resembles Simpson's Sideshow Bob) plays his role very well, and the sorrow old black man voice for Camel works perfectly. Why is it that old dubbed animation was soo much better than new ones? Music: 10 - Nothing short of perfection here. The songs have been in my head for years, and re-watching it nearly 20 years later, i can still remember each and every one of them and will now be able to know exactly where these tunes come from. Joe Raposo of "Sesame Street" fame did an excellent job with the songs for this and everyone sings real well.<br /><br />Editing: 6 - Heh, this is where it'll get confusing. I mean how far did the Raggedy's walk anyway? A lot of events just seem to occur one after another and there's no telling WHO the other dolls and toys were as you never see them in the real world of the movie, but it does follow some sort of path and you know they'll eventually get to where they need to go, its just pretty hard to follow at times.<br /><br />Uniqueness: 8 - Between this and Unico i'd have to say there's parts in both movies i will never forget no matter how hard i try to. Mainly the scary parts. I've probably mentioned already how older movies were Much creepier than animation of today but this takes the cake in the scary factor. Outside of the South Park movie and some Disney films there's almost no animated musicals, or good ones of that coming out so its very unique.<br /><br />Worth: 8- Its classic. Worth the hunt to get a good copy thats for sure, but the VHS copies are probably all stretched out by now. The DVD version is sold on Ebay all the time and it'll definitely be something you'll watch more than once. If anything get it for the nostalgia purposes.<br /><br />Overall Score (Not an average): 8 - Its a wonderful timeless musical made in the late 70s and can still be enjoyed today. Its characters are all unique and the songs are great. So great you might find yourself humming them time and time again. Give your favorite stuffed animal a hug today! Reviewer's Insight (Including bias): This isn't like the Raggedy Ann TV series made a decade later. This was way more darker and real world. The effects in this seem like a lot of other acid-trip cartoons from the 70's, in particular, Yellow Submarine. Still, its given me memories I'll never forget, and might still influence things today. It wasn't easy to find but it'll remain a treasure to keep in my collection of DVDs and videos forever.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I grew up on this classic western series, and as a child always considered it a treat being allowed to stay up late on Sunday evenings to watch it. Bonanza is still infinitely re watchable in re runs.<br /><br />The series chronicles the adventures of the Cartwright family, who live on a ranch near Virginia City, Nevada around the Civil War era. Their ranch (called the Ponderosa) is run and defended by the widowed father, Ben, and his unmarried three sons, Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe. These three brothers have different mothers, all of whom have passed away years earlier.<br /><br />The Cartwrights are a hard working, prosperous, and honourable family, highly respected in those parts. The Ponderosa is large so reaching its extremities requires a lot of horseback riding. Also, trips away are often necessary in order to buy or sell cattle and so forth. Needless to say, few of these excursions pass uneventfully. Although hospitable, much of the Cartwrights' energy must be spent defending their ranch from interlopers, or protecting themselves from townsfolk jealous of their prosperity and stellar reputation. The Cartwrights do a fair bit of firing their guns up in the air and such, but only shoot to kill when deemed absolutely necessary. They are involved in various town affairs, even the political life of the Nevada territory.<br /><br />One of the main assets of the series is the underlying warmth that is always present (despite occasional disagreements) between Ben and his three sons, and (despite frequent disagreements) between the three brothers. Now, one brother might beat up another every now and then, but generally has a good reason for it at the time and his anger never lasts long! The characters are all very well drawn. Ben is portrayed as a successful and noble man of great integrity. The oldest son, Adam, the most rational and suave of the brothers, left midway through the series. The middle brother, Hoss, is a gentle giant of a teddy bear, who has an insatiable appetite for food and is a little shy around the ladies. The youngest, Little Joe, is a hot headed, handsome charmer who, by contrast, has quite a way with women. This trio of brothers enjoy various romances but their love interests are typically killed off by the end of the episode or else marriage proves impossible, for whatever reason.<br /><br />The actors are all stellar in their roles, including Pernell Roberts (Adam), Dan Blocker (Hoss), Michael Landon (Little Joe), and of course Lorne Greene as the principled family patriarch, Ben. I also love the ranch cook, Hop Sing, played by Victor Sen Yung.<br /><br />This is a wonderful action packed western with great values. The Cartwrights are always the noble heroes and most of the bad guys quite villainous. If only there were more programs like this vintage western on TV these days!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The first episode immediately gave a good impression what to expect from the series! Mysteries waiting to be solved and a lot of good drama! I love the fact that they gradually reveal the stories concerning the characters! Explaining just enough to stay excited! Of course this show has some flaws! In the first two series there are some characters who for some reason don't show up in the third season! Many of the characters have a decent sent off but some of them just aren't there! Like Rose and her husband! Where the hell are they? What happened to them? Maybe they will return in later episodes! But it is a little inconsistent! That being said "Lost" manages to be thrilling every episode(especially the first two seasons)! That is a very hard thing to do! I do notice that in the third season the focus is more on character development than the mystery aspects of the show! This is not a bad thing! It even saves some episodes from getting boring! One of the elements that can be considered the strength of this show are the wonderful characters! You will grow to love these characters! Good or bad! But eventually I will want to see some mysteries to be solved and get closure! The danger of "Lost" getting canceled due to declining ratings is near! And that would be devastating!
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 like this movie. Bozz is an ultra-cool, not to be intimidated soldier who does not want to go to war. His persona is similar in a way to Yossarian in Catch-22, Joseph Heller's classic novel about men and war. This film, however, is not set in a war zone, but in a pre-war combat prep training. This wonderful film is all about the sickening realization that the Vietnam war was a mistake and those men who were pegged to be sacrificed for a losing cause.<br /><br />Colin Farrell is brilliant as Bozz, a soldier who showed as much genuine love and compassion for his fellow soldier as he did disdain and irreverence for the establishment that was trying to kill him. Bozz is totally cool and non-plussed, testing and tweaking his military superiors, getting their goat at every opportunity. He is a Jesus Christ figure with a psychology degree, "saving" his fellow soldiers and showing the ones in genuine need, the way out of this man's army.<br /><br />The acting and action is crisp and believable and as a "Sleeper", Tigerland goes down with Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket as one of the top three Vietnam films in my opinion.<br /><br />FIVE STARS, a top pick.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson. <br /><br />We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.<br /><br />It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics). <br /><br />Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.<br /><br />Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos.
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 wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing.
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 never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Terry Gilliam traveled again to the future (he had already done it in "Brazil") to tell this story about a virus that's destroying the human race.<br /><br />The script is totally crazy with some easy tricks on it but it's quite entertaining and Gilliam proves that he's got imagination (the futuristic scenes are just great). As for the cast, Bruce Willis and the beautiful Madeleine Stowe (whatever happened to her??) are just OK, but Brad Pitt is so annoying, whenever he plays roles that are out of his hand he results so forced and he's not credible at all. He should just play good-looking successful young men.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the "stage", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).<br /><br />The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the "heat is on", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the "saitn" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.<br /><br />Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A-
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a "7" rated movie!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that "Superman Returns" is bad movie. <br /><br />In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.<br /><br />Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't "Amadeus" or "The Departed". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.<br /><br />Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)<br /><br />Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.<br /><br />Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).<br /><br />Final conclusion? One word: shame. <br /><br />This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.<br /><br />Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).<br /><br />The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.<br /><br />This programme is available on network DVD
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 sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.<br /><br />The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.<br /><br />There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.<br /><br />I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.<br /><br />Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.<br /><br />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: "The Lady in Question (1999)" starring Gene Wilder is a well-acted mystery drama that reminds me of the old black-and-white Raymond Burr Perry Mason series. Both Perry and "Cash" kept me guessing right up to the end. There were many suspects with a motive for the murder, but I had no idea which character it would be.<br /><br />Gene Wilder has a special charming wit about him, even in his facial expressions and vocal inflections which make him perfect for the part. The portions of the movie which portrayed actors acting was done very well. I'm sure this is an additional challenge for the cast to pull off. I am not surprised to see that he did some of the writing for the movie. Even his singing was a delight. I like him in this role more than his former "sillier" roles like "The Young Frankenstein" and "Willy Wonka." I am hoping A & E will continue this series. They ought to call it something like "The A & E Gene Wilder Mysteries."<br /><br />The music fit the period. I enjoyed the cool live combo and the swing tunes. I was a little unclear at the beginning whether we were seeing a flashback or whether the action was taking place in that time period. And I do not agree that the inclusion of profanity is necessary to the flow of the script. To me, that always distracts.<br /><br />Overall, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this second in a well-crafted start in what we hope will be many others -- just like one of our other favorites: Raymond Burr's Perry Mason.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I won't spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. I just want to add it because all the comments were so positive I felt like I just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled, let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. Some scenes seemed promising, playing with visual dimensions, but couldn't hold up the rest. I felt like I was stoned for the first time again, having semi-philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents.<br /><br />What a futile attempt to raise Dutch cinema to new heights. I'd rather watch Jesus is een Palestijn, without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor, also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves.<br /><br />Gert de Graff is not Jean-Luc Godard or Tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"<br /><br />Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)<br /><br />The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This comedy is really not funny. It' a romance that plays so much on stereotypes it makes no impact. It's a caper film so derivative -- yes, even back then -- it has no snap.<br /><br />The cast is adequate. More than that it's hard to say. However, what's nice is that the players are unfamiliar. At MGM, this would have starred Robert Montgomery. The wife of a businessman with no time for anything but work could have been any number of actresses.<br /><br />We can be grateful that this little known film is peopled by performers mostly unknown today. And the production values aren't awful. Yet it makes no real impression.<br /><br />It's a generic knockoff. And who wants that?
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 had a morbid fascination with tornadoes for more than 40 years, since my 5th grade teacher, a native Texan, told stories of ones he saw in his youth. Fortunately, I've lived my whole life in the middle Atlantic states, where tornadoes are rare and usually not as violent as the ones in the Midwest, but I have had two close encounters, one in PA and the other in NJ, in the past decade.<br /><br />I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.<br /><br />When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.<br /><br />The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).<br /><br />I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for "10" to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself!
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 is about a man who has been too caught up with the accepted convention of success, trying to be ever upwardly mobile, working hard so that he could be proud of owning his own home. He assumes this is all there is to life until he accidentally takes up dancing, all because he wanted to get a closer look of a beautiful girl that he sees by the dance studio everyday while riding the subway on his way home.<br /><br />His was infatuated with her at first, going to the dance class just to idolize her, but he eventually lets himself go and gets himself into the dancing. It eventually becomes apparent to him that there is more to life than working yourself to death. There is a set of oddball characters also learning in the studio, giving the film a lot of laughs and some sense of bonding between the dejected.<br /><br />There is also revelations of various characters, including the girl he initially admired, giving some depth to them by showing their blemished past and their struggle to overcome it.<br /><br />The dancing was also engaging, with the big competition at the end, but it is not the usual story where our underdog come out at the top by winning it. Instead, there are downfalls, revelations and redemption.<br /><br />All these makes it a moving and fun film to watch.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life. <br /><br />But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds. <br /><br />There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair.
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 has been poorly received and badly reviewed. The book by Rebecca West was written in 1918, soon after WWI, when shell shock and trauma-induced amnesia were not clichés, as the reviewers call it many books and movies later. It is difficult to go back in time and live, as the characters lived, the realities of the time: the war and the horror of the experience of the first war to use lethal gas, the British class system the wife thought all-important, the hopeless spinster, and the lover from the past still seen with the eyes of love being as young and as beautiful as she was 20 years ago.<br /><br />Alan Bates as the amnesiac soldier who "will die" if he isn't allowed to see Margaret, the girl of his youthful dreams, builds on the devotion his character showed in "Far From the Madding Crowd". Having seen that performance, it is possible to sense his strong romantic attachment to the girl who didn't live up to the family's and society's expectations. Margaret says, "We quarreled, and as you rowed away, you turned your face away from me." So we know that the breakup was something that he instigated, that it brought him shame, but that he forgot the shame in his memory of his time with Margaret. I haven't seen all his films, but in the ones I've seen, he imparts a strong masculinity, which shines through even in this role as the disabled soldier.<br /><br />I didn't even recognize Ann-Margaret at first and feel that her performance has been underrated. Not having read the book, I wondered whether the child who died was the result of acting on a borderline incestuous feeling between Jenny and Chris, though Jenny does state that she "is a cousin". The way Kitty keeps Jenny in the nursery in the hair-drying scene, the fact that Kitty says she always dries her hair in that room seems more a way for Kitty to keep the coals of anger hot than the orientation of the room to the sun, or sentiment about a lost child, and the statement she made that she wished Chris hadn't felt it necessary to preserve the room exactly as it was when the child was alive made her seem uncaring toward the memory of the child. Also, Jenny is shown as living in the house in a subservient role, as high society would have done to a fallen member at the time.<br /><br />Having recently been the recipient of the intense fantasy of a lover (non-sexualin keeping with the mores of the time) from 50 years ago, I couldrelate to Margaret's and her husband's dilemma. I, too, was cast aside because I wasn't good enough for his family, and upon his rediscovery of me via the internet, I was burdened with helping him deal with his still very horrifying Vietnam experiences and a marriage to a woman above his class whom he didn't believe he loved. My husband, like Margaret's was very understanding, but the strain was very real. The lover was finally able to reconcile his real-life situation with his fantasy of loving only me.<br /><br />I thought that it was a good decision to show very little of the reliving of the war experience that was happening in Chris's mind. I thought of "Mrs. Dalloway" with the WWI soldier who acts out very violent memories and commits suicide versus Chris's joy in his fantasy of Margaret. In contrast, the actiona of the soldier in "Mrs. Dalloway" seems overwrought.<br /><br />Showing that the psychiatrist understood very little of what was happening to Chris underlines what a major problem the whole group faced. Everyone seems to get their life back, but was it the right choice?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.<br /><br />Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.<br /><br />Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: As one other IMDB reviewer has remarked, this movie starts a bit slow, but gets considerably better as it goes along. Yes, it is released by Roger Corman, and yes, it goes over some of the same thematic ground as much higher budget predecessors such as FATAL ATTRACTION and POISON IVY. However, the juxtapositioning of the wife's career as a rising blues singer against the husband's gathering loneliness and his almost Freudian need for filling the emotional and physical "void" or "hole" while she's away along with the clever use of minimal effects and settings is nicely done. Utilizing a very small number of locations and characters, and also using water in almost every scene both as a cleansing and drowning metaphorical symbol throughout, this movie, though clearly suffering from a minuscule budget, reminds me in many ways of the more fully realized and more recent scenario, namely the French film "SWIMMING POOL" which it seems to me at least may have borrowed liberally some useful ideas from "UP AGAINST AMANDA." With a smaller tool set, UP AGAINST AMANDA maintains its suspense with a rudimentary, fatalistic view of surrendering to ones occasional lustful temptations, but accomplishes this as well or better as other films in this genre. The twist of the stepfather abuse of Amanda in the past (again, very Freudian) is also very unique in this genre and interesting. I agree with other viewers about the unexpected and sympathetic reaction for Amanda's plight this aspect of the story elicits. The cast is excellent I think.<br /><br />
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.<br /><br />Leon "The Ladies' Man" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for "doin' it in the butt"? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that "The Ladies' Man is back," to her obvious chagrin.<br /><br />Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.<br /><br />See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic. <br /><br />The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.<br /><br />You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment. <br /><br />There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement? <br /><br />All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete 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: When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.<br /><br />Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.<br /><br />It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Gosha's last great film of the 1960's. A resolute stylist with a great sense of purpose to his films, Gosha teamed up with Shintaro Katsu (of Zatoichi fame) to produce this scathing indictment of mindless nationalist loyalty. <br /><br />"Tenchu" (heavenly judgment) is the word that the loyalists to the emperor yell while assassinating enemies or "traitors" to the cause. Katsu plays up his character' simple minded allegiance to a manipulative politician all in the name of patriotic pride. Anybody who questions the politician is labeled a "traitor" and becomes an assassination target.<br /><br />One of the best photographed films ever, many shots are incredible compositions of form, color and light. The fight scenes are frequent and very bloody and brutal. The blood becomes a part of the color palette Gosha uses for his images. Gorgeous and disturbing. While the personal story is simple to follow, the historical background is complicated and while a basic history lesson for this time in Japan would be very helpful you can struggle through the film without it. The few drawbacks to the film are the music track, the length and Katsu's occasional scenery chewing. He has a drunken scene that's way over the top for a film but actually a very accurate depiction of a drunk.<br /><br />Downbeat but one of the great chambara films.
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 working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'<br /><br />I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.<br /><br />An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.<br /><br />It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.<br /><br />Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game.
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 irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!<br /><br />The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.<br /><br />The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.<br /><br />It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!<br /><br />René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.<br /><br />The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!<br /><br />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: It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.
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 an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie 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: Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.<br /><br />Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).<br /><br />In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.<br /><br />Stars: **** (excellent)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: ...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)
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 read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!<br /><br />This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.<br /><br />Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.<br /><br />I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.<br /><br />There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.
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 show peoples in the middle of the hottest 2 days in Austria. It shows people humiliating other peoples and being cruel to other peoples. It show the inability of people to communicate or talk with others.<br /><br />In the screening I have attended people were leaving in the middle because they could no longer watch the film. And rightly so. Because the film is not and easy one to watch. It has a very depressing message and there isn't any moment of mercy in the film. It is a very cruel movie, not for everyone's taste. You can not speak of terms of enjoyment from this film. It grips you in your throat and never let go and in the end you simply feels breathless because of its intensity.<br /><br />I can not "recommend" or "not recommend" this film. You should make your own mind based on what I have said earlier. Just be aware that this is not a regular film and it is not for everyone's taste.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A new creative team emerged in 1950 when brilliant actor James Stewart teamed with the equally-brilliant director Anthony Mann to make a series of westerns that helped define that genre for the future. Until that time Stewart was mainly noted for an aw..aw..aw approach to family oriented comedies, dramas, and romances. Not that he wasn't already a multi-talented Hollywood star. One of his best screen performances ever and one of the best for anyone on celluloid was as Macaulay 'Mike' Connor, a sarcastic writer for a scandal rag in "The Philadelphia Story." He had even done westerns before. His portrayal of gun shy yet expert shot Thomas Jefferson Destry Jr. in the comedy western "Destry Rides Again" helped make that film a classic. But to most movie goers he was the all-American boyscout type Mr. Smith or George Bailey. Seldom was there a dark side to any of the characters he played. <br /><br />Anthony Mann was associated with B flicks in the film noir mode. "Raw Deal," "Side Street," and "T-Men" caught the eye of James Stewart. So the two gifted men combined their resources to produce some of the greatest Hollywood westerns ever made. "Winchester '73" and "The Man from Laramie" were the best but the others were almost as effective. Mann became a successful director of A films as a result going on to direct what some critics believe to be the greatest western of them all Gary Cooper's "Man of the West." Stewart became fabulously wealthy as a result of the partnership because he signed for part of the royalties in return for a fraction of the salary he was usually paid, a wise move indeed followed by many other actors from then on.<br /><br />Winchester '73 was also one of the first films, maybe the first, to tell a story from the standpoint of a traveling gun. Each owner is part of the tale being told and it all comes together in the exciting showdown at the end of the movie, which also holds a surprise for the viewer. Based on a story by Stuart Lake, the tale centers on revenge and the ownership of the Winchester '73. The year is 1876. Custer and his 7th cavalry have been annihilated by the Sioux and Cheyenne at Little Big Horn. The whites want revenge. The native Americans want their land and their way of life back. This conflict leads to a confrontation between native Americas led by Young Bull (young Rock Hudson showing his potential as an actor) and a small cavalry group pinned down in a canyon and joined by civilians Lin McAdam (Stewart), his partner and life-long pal High Spade ( the underrated actor Millard Mitchell), and a couple trying to find themselves, Steve Miller (Charles Drake) and Lola Manners (Shelley Winters), a soiled dove with a kind heart. Among the horse soldiers are newcomers Tony Curtis and James Best (late of the "Dukes of Hazzard"), whose part is cut short by a bullet.<br /><br />Wyatt Earp was in Dodge City in 1876. The movie has him as head marshal. The fine actor Will Geer (later of the Waltons) looks like an older Earp. In reality Wyatt was assistant Marshal in Dodge at the time just cutting his teeth on being a lawman. Lin McAdam wins the Winchester in a shooting contest, but has it taken from him not long afterward by outlaw Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) and his henchmen. McAdam and High Spade are after both Dutch Henry and the Winchester for the remainder of the movie. An even more sinister character emerges along the way, Waco Johnnie Dean, played as evil personified by Dan Duryea who threatens to steal the show from the other members of a stellar cast.<br /><br />The Winchester passes through several hands during the course of the film, each time the transfer is intense. One involves a gunrunner played to perfection by John McIntire. Other swaps are intermingled with the scenario above. All this plus the action keeps the viewer glued to the seat throughout the entire show.<br /><br />As noted above, the cast is first rate down to the smallest role. Look for other familiar faces in uncredited parts, including the future sheriff of "Bonanza" Ray Teal and B western reliable Panhandle Perkins (Guy Wilkerson).
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 was well done in all respects. The acting is superb along with the fine audio soundtrack which I purchased because it was so moving. It is my all time favorite movie ahead of eastwoods "white hunter,black heart". This movie is simply the best.<br /><br />cheers Zuf
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war. <br /><br /> I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff. <br /><br /> Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.<br /><br /> If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such. <br /><br />
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: That's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!<br /><br />If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song ("Nightmare Fantasy"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns "DANGER! DANGER!" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!<br /><br />This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: There are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: "I'm surrounded by morons." Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 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: The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.<br /><br />(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: One of the most definitive gangster films of the 80's, Scarface is very much a film of its time. The first thing you notice when you watch this film is that it is screaming at you, 'made in 1983'. The costumes, the music score and soundtrack, the hairstyles, make no mistake about it this is a film all about crime in the 80's and while it should have dated horribly it hasn't. This is still a superb film. While Georgio Moroder's music has dated a fair bit, it still compliments the story of Tony Montana well thanks to the superb screenplay by Oliver Stone and the first class direction of Brian De Palma, one of two films that he has made with Pacino (the other being the fantastic Carlito's Way). All of De Palma's trademarks are here; the strong language, the graphic violence (more on that later), the stylish excesses such as grandiose set pieces and of course the stylish camera work.<br /><br />Pacino dominates the film and I mean that literally. He is the dominant star of this film. His performance over the top, this is one of those films were Pacino doesn't so much say his lines as he does shouts them, this time with a superb Cuban accent. However, this is Pacino and he does it fantastically. Only he could go this far over the top and still come away from the film with his acting integrity in tact. While some may complain about his shouting of his lines and the sheer excess of it all, this is an excessive film. Take a look at the production design of Tony's house, take a look at the violence in this film. The chainsaw incident is downright brutal and their is blood everywhere. The shoot out at the end has bodies going down at a rate that is more akin to Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the Rambo films. Take a look at the amount of coke that is displayed in the film so Pacino's performance I suppose is perfect for the film. He is supported by actors who are more akin to saying their lines in a more controlled way. Steven Bauer, in particularly, as Manny, Tony's best friend, is the stand out of the supporting cast. His performance is so controlled and quiet in a De Niro sort of way it is a wonder how he ended up doing straight to video soft porn. Michelle Pfeiffer, of course, adds the glamor, Robert Loggia adds gravitas as usual and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio makes a great debut as Tony's sister.<br /><br />Of course this is more than just a film about excess. There is more to it than drugs, violence, chainsaw assaults and a big great shoot out. This is a film about the darker side of the American dream. In many ways it puts it on a thematic par with The Godfather films. Tony finds himself coming to America, getting it all, living the American dream and then losing it all in violent fashion, and by saying he loses it all, I mean he loses it all. He kills his best friend, his sister is killed, his empire crumbles, literally, around him and to top it of he is killed in his own mansion, bullets ripping through him. <br /><br />Without doubt Scarface is one of the key films of the early 80's. Sure, it doesn't have the subtleties of The Godfather films, but this is still a fine film and one that is worth going to again and again.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: * Some spoilers *<br /><br />This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.<br /><br />There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.<br /><br />That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.<br /><br />There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.<br /><br />Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.<br /><br />The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?<br /><br />To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.<br /><br />An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.<br /><br />Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.<br /><br />Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.<br /><br />There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself. <br /><br />Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?<br /><br />The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.<br /><br />Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.<br /><br />As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.<br /><br />It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without 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 read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.
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, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.<br /><br />The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Look, I know this may suck right now, but pain is temporary, film is forever. Whatever you do right now is burned into celluloid for all time and for thousands of years to come." Robert De Niro<br /><br />This was initially a film for Steven Spielberg, the director hiring several screenwriters to adjust the screenplay so that it more suited his themes. And so we have a dysfunctional family that is threatened by a deranged monster in the form of a recently released from prison Robert De Niro. Like "Jurassic Park", "Poltergeist" and "War of the Worlds", the dysfunctional family bands together to defeat the beast, the beast being the creation of the father, a lawyer who failed to defend De Niro during his trial. <br /><br />In typical Spielberg fashion, the father kills the monster that undermines the family and is then promptly absolved of his sins. Like Oscar Schindler, Robin Williams, Sam Niel, Tom Cruise and virtually every "daddy" figure in Spielberg land, the father reclaims his paternal duty in the kind of bittersweet coda that Spielberg so enjoys.<br /><br />But Spielberg eventually abandoned the picture and the project was instead turned over to Martin Scorsese, who at the time was seeking to try his hand at more commercial fare. The result is arguably the worst film in Scorsese's filmography, and, ironically, his most illuminating.<br /><br />An artist's failures or misfires are often very revealing, exposing the inner workings of their art. When the story doesn't work, the characters don't connect or the images don't sear, we find ourselves left with a kind of inner core. This the remaining carcass- is what the director's cinema is about.<br /><br />Now "Cape Fear" is an impersonal film, so we won't find any thematic connections to the rest of Scorsese's filmography ("You already sacrificed me!" De Niro yells, but the films themes of Catholic redemption are cookie cutter). What the film does, though, is expose the kind of language that his filmography hinges on. Watch how Scorsese's camera desperately whips back and forth, how he zooms frantically onto doorknobs and windows in an attempt to force tension and how his characters are all loud and screaming for attention. But more importantly, watch how the film makes no spatial sense. A showdown on a boat at the end of the film takes place on an obvious sound-stage, a street parade is claustrophobic and takes place within no larger context and the family's house doesn't seem to exist anywhere in particular. There is simply no geographical sense to anything in the picture, Scorsese unable to film space or create any kind of spatial environment. <br /><br />The reason for this is that Scorsese's camera always has to be bound, or intimately tethered, to his central character. For the world around the character to make sense, his camera has to be focused on the character. Resnais can take you around a French Hotel, Welles and Hitchcock can dance you down a street and up a building, Cameron can give you a tour of the Titanic, Scott can recreate an entire future cityscape, Lucas can give you an alien desert planet, and most other directors can create a sense of space by textbook "close up-mid shot-wide shot" combinations, but Scorsese can't do this. There's no poetry, no sense of tangible space in his films. He's all about the character. You break that tether, you leave that boxing ring, that taxi cab, you look away from De Niro, and everything collapses. He simply cannot break away from this very documentarian style of shooting, which, in a way, is a prerequisite for action film-making.<br /><br />Scorsese tried to rectify this problem with "Gangs of New York", where the space and the sets become the central character, but even this self consciously spatial experiment gets sabotaged by the magnetism of Daniel Day Lewis, the actor drawing Scorsese's camera inexorably toward him like a moth to a bulb.<br /><br />5/10 Even as a generic B-movie, this is an ugly, vulgar looking film. Look at the matte paintings, the inept attempts at tension, the silly rotorscoped special effects and hokey fistfight showdown. Still, we have Robert De Niro to pick up the slack. De Niro, who gives his body over to Scorsese like a tattooed Christ, gives the film its only great scene. In an improvised romantic sequence with young a Juliette Lewis, he sticks his thumb into her mouth and kisses her. A kind of symbolic rape, the girl runs away, both aroused and repelled by this man's interest.<br /><br />But De Niro's performance, so deliciously over the top, simply can't be imitated by Scorsese. You'd need the operatic tone and the baroque visuals of someone like De Palma to make this work. But Scorsese? Nope.<br /><br />Worth one viewing.
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 seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.<br /><br />I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.<br /><br />It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)<br /><br />The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.<br /><br />The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.<br /><br />Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.<br /><br />I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.<br /><br />Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).<br /><br />To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!<br /><br />Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Most successful comic book movies usually depend on having villains that are bigger than life, ready to jump off the screen and strangle you alive with a smile or a demented line or two of dialog. The Tim Burton Batmans had it, as did (in an even more grotesque manner) Sin City. With Dick Tracy producer/director/star Warren Beatty piles on the villains until it becomes part of the framework. Like a boisterous homage to 1930s gangster pictures- only this time meant for kids as opposed to the darker Bonnie and Clyde- Dick Tracy is filled, joyfully, with archetypes and bright, primary colors, where the criminals carry tommy guns and are formed on their faces to shape their personalities. Villains like The Stooge, Shoulders, Lips, The Brow, Mumbles, the Blank, Pruneface, Spud. Chester Gould gave the names to his characters that fit their profiles, and gave his hero a jaw that could cut glass. The film is a continuation of sight gags that are perfectly taken seriously.<br /><br />If, at the time, movies like Batman and (underrated) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were darker depictions of reality within a comic-book outline, Dick Tracy is more 'old-school'. It's a story of cops and crooks, or rather A cop, detective Tracy as he tries to bust Big Boy (Al Pacino, in what is arguably his BIGGEST performance to date, and in a sense the one that makes sense for his grandiose style), but with no such luck. There's also a little kid, called simply the Kid (Charlie Korsmo, who somehow brings more spunk to this little kid than would've been imagined), and Tracy's love interest in Tess. And then there's the nightclub 'dame' (Madonna, who probably doesn't give any kind of great acting performance, but maybe that suits the role fine, and she sings excellently when called upon), who wont testify unless Tracy admits feelings he doesn't have for her. Then there's convoluted dealings with taking Tracy down, and a mysterious masked figure with a scraggly voice.<br /><br />Meantime, as if doing an impersonation of a Howard Hawks film in a splash of visual effects and bigger explosions, Dick Tracy adds on the wink-and-nod comedy and the action like its syrup on a tall stack of pancakes. It's a wonder to look at this world, which is created in ways that have a fascination to them that had they been done today would just be simply by proxy of computers (i.e. Sin City, which can be justifiably compared to Beatty's film). We're driven through this world in great big shots and then thrust in the plot line, or whatever there is of it, in big editing montages with camera angles that seem to come out of those little tilted panels in the comics of old. I'm almost reminded of the Cotton Club during these sequences, as story, music, detail, and a few BIG punches and gun-shots go a long way to revealing what needs to be said, which, actually, isn't more than it needs to. And there's a heap-load of catchy dialog from the script (one of my favorites: "the enemy of my enemy is... my enemy", plus any of Pacino's references to other figures in quotes).<br /><br />Revisiting this after seeing it for the first time in the movie theater (and only remembering little bits), Dick Tracy is a hard-boiled fantasy to the finest degree. It's filled with good cheer for the kids, and with some pretty good action squared away without some of the more sinister intent of its cousin comic-book movies (i.e. PG-13 fare), and for the adults its throw-back central done with panache and a solid feeling for the unsubtle. Even Dustin Hoffman hams it up, and he barely says an audible word!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |