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 is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I saw the movie with two grown children. Although it was not as clever as Shrek, I thought it was rather good. In a movie theatre surrounded by children who were on spring break, there was not a sound so I know the children all liked it. There parents also seemed engaged. The death and apparent death of characters brought about the appropriate gasps and comments. Hopefully people realize this movie was made for kids. As such, it was successful although I liked it too. Personally I liked the Scrat!!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Even though the plot was very well detailed,and the story line was understandable the fact that Steven Seagals voice was dubbed with some one else's through out most of the movie was distressing as you were unsure who was talking . There were many parts where he would start to talk in his deep raspy voice and then the next some one else's voice was doing the talking for him. I don't know the reason however if he had difficulty with his voice during production of the movie I think they could have re shot the events that did not contain his own voice when he had recovered. I have rated this movie 3 out of 10 based on the quality of the film. When one pays for a movie whether or not its at the theater or on DVD this movie was not worth the admission price that was charged. I have been a long time follower of Steven Seagal and all his movies that he has done over the past years.To date I think this is one of the worst ones we have seen yet
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: After too many bad memories, I took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the Season 2 sequence. I recently watched it again just to remind me why. I've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of "Shades of Gray," which barely counts as an episode at all).<br /><br />I keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red-penciled by the author's Writing 101 teacher: "SHOW, DON'T TELL!" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, it could be that no one short of John Barrowman (Jack Harkness from "Doctor Who") could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role.<br /><br />(Zero points, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, he and Brent Spiner had nothing to work with here. Although the Jerry Lewis bit was funny in a stupid way.)<br /><br />On a good day, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to "Time Squared" or "Q Who."
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: *Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*<br /><br />When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.<br /><br />First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.<br /><br />If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it
I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.<br /><br />That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.<br /><br />Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I saw this movie as a child and it broke my heart! No other story had such a unfinished ending... I grew up on many great anime movies and this was one of my favourites, because it was so unusual - a story about unfairness, and cruelty, and loneliness, and life, and choices that can't be undone, and the need for others. Chirin is made alone when the Wolf kills his mother, but the Wolf is alone, too, when Chirin follows him into the mountain. The Wolf doesn't kill the lamb, even though each night he says "maybe I'll eat you tomorrow." The tape of it I have is broken and degraded from age and use. I will repair it and watch the movie again someday and cry just as hard as I did as a child. Stories like this, with this depth and feeling, and this intricacy of meaning, are very rare. It is a sad story, but I've never encountered any catharsis more beautifully made. I am glad I have seen this movie, and I'm glad I saw it as a child.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have seen Dirty Work several times and is probably my favourite Stan and Ollie short.<br /><br />In this one, Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and get the job to clean the chimney at the home of Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield). While Noodle is doing mad experiments in his lab, Stan and Ollie cause much chaos trying to clean the chimney and make a mess of the living room. The end is where Ollie falls into a tank of special formula that Noodle uses for his experiments and this turns him into a chimp! The best part is where Ollie falls down the chimney and loads of bricks land on his head, but he doesn't seem to suffer much pain from this.<br /><br />Dirty Work is Stan and Ollie at their funniest. Great fun.<br /><br />Rating: 5 stars out of 5.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Its about time that Gunga Din is released on DVD. I cannot accurately say how many times I have watched this fine film but, I never tire of it. The lead actors worked so well together. Victor Mclaglen (Sgt McChesney), Cary Grant (Sgt Cutter) and Douglas Fairbanks Jr (Sgt Ballentine) are an unbeatable team.<br /><br />I just cannot get over their exploits in India. Your first glimpse at the Sergeants Three, is when you see them engaged in fighting with other soldiers over a so-called treasure Map. The three Sergeants are sent on an expedition to find out what happened to the communications line an they enter a mostly deserted town- or so they think.<br /><br />They engage in the necessary repairs and soon find a few "residents" in hiding. Soon after they get attacked by a group of madmen and barely make an escape back to base.<br /><br />Later they are sent on another mission which gives Sgt Cutter a chance to go hunting for the Gold with Din. They find the temple of gold and are trapped by the evil Kali supporters. Din is sent to fetch help and Cutter gets captured. Soon McChesney and Ballentine arrive with Din, and they are too captured.<br /><br />Faced with being killed, they watch helplessly as their Regiment comes to rescue them. The evil doers watch and are about to spring their surprise attack when a wounded Din climbs onto the golden dome and blows his bugle which then alerts the British to the ambush. In doing this, Din is shot dead.<br /><br />The Soldiers attack the evil ones and soon defeat them. At the end, Din is honored as he is made an honorary Corporal in the British Army.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: THE SECRET OF KELLS is an astonishing first animated feature which will dazzle your eye and move your heart. The shortcomings of the film's limited budget and sometimes limited animation are more than compensated for by the visual poetry of the story of young Brendan's heroic quest to become a master illuminator during the dark ages. Historically this was in the late 8th century, when the centers of Irish learning were over-run by the Vikings. The Vikings appear here as brute antagonists, the equivalent on the North Seas of the plundering Huns and Mongols further East. The film's narrative--- which functions more as a parable--- centers around the conflict between Brendan, who seeks to create beauty in his illuminations during a time of encroaching darkness, and his stern Uncle the Abbot-- who seeks to protect the town of Kells and his nephew with a looming wall as barrier against the Norsemen. The Abbot disregards the value of Brendan's art in his quest for security. This is the movie's outer conflict. Brendan's inner conflict is to find the hidden eye of creative illumination which will allow him to complete the most difficult painting in the Book of Kells. This eye is guarded by a Dragon Ouroboros, who destroys from within those not suited to this quest as surely as the Vikings will kill from without (That's as much of the story as I'll divulge!)<br /><br />What I really like about this film is its creators' imaginative understanding of some of the greatest art work to survive in the West from 1200 years ago. The characters are stylized in flat abstract shapes defined by line just as in the original Book of Kells. (Particularly noteworthy is monk Aidan's pet cat, defined in few lines, yet purely--- and even magically metamorphically feline.) The range of emotion which Brendan and the other animated characters convey given their economy of abstract design is a tribute to the excellent artistry of the director and his animators. The decorative borders on the edge of the picture change to complement the dramatic impact of a given scene, and this characteristic of illuminations from the dark ages is brought to wondrous animated life in THE SECRET OF KELLS. Of course, historical dramas usually tell us more about our own times than the times which these dramas endeavor to depict. However, by introducing archetypal elements into this story, the writers and director of THE SECRET OF KELLS convey a numinous sense of lived-life from that far-off time in Ireland which feels psychologically true, however much the script might stray from pedantic historical fact. (The United Nations' band of illuminators who appear as a rogues' club of artists in The SECRET OF KELLS aren't historically probable, but they're all well-designed, individuated characters who do much to convey the universal appeal of this quintessentially Irish story.) Animation has always seemed the best vehicle to me to better help us understand the visual art of different times and cultures. The magnificent art direction of this movie clearly derives from its historical visual source, but has also been cleverly adapted to the demands of animated storytelling; if animation had existed in the Dark Ages, the SECRET OF KELLS is what it would look like! Finally, Brendan's hero's quest in this film is the artist's perennial quest to convey the spirit of beauty, life and inspiration. (Without being preachy or even particularly Christian, this movie affirms Jesus' dictum that "Man does not live by bread alone." ) In my estimation the most inspired movie about the creative process of visual artists is Andrei Tarkovsky's ANDREI RUBLEV, a film about the great Russian icon painter of the 15th century. The SECRET OF KELLS expresses much the same sense of mystery and exhilaration about the artist's visual quest and creative process. It's certainly not as profound as ANDREI RUBLEV, but--- heck--- its a cartoon! (And one which will appeal to young and old alike.) I think this movie will hold up well to repeated viewing: in its own modest life-affirming way, this stylized SECRET OF KELLS is a classic.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Camp with a capital C. Think of Mask and the Ace Ventura movies -- then multiply by 100. This laugh-a-minute entertainer takes schlock to the level of high art. David Dhawan is a genius and Govinda is beyond description. See it over and over again. I insist.
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 just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.<br /><br />None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?<br /><br />Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.<br /><br />If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!<br /><br />The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. "Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.<br /><br />And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say "Duh?" <br /><br />Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.<br /><br />Rent it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Many of the classic films of the late '60s haven't retained their ability to disturb and confront the audience. "In Cold Blood" hasn't lost an ounce of its power. Its exceptionally well made yet forces the viewer to think. Some have complained not only about the film, but about Truman Capote's source "non-fiction novel", that the central message is unsubtle. That may be true, but this is definitely a case where the lack of ambiguity doesn't detract from the film at all. Its refreshing, especially considering today's simplistic and manipulative moral dramas, to see a film with a convinced political voice unafraid to force the audience to consider its viewpoint. To be honest, I'm not sure if I agree with the film's central message, but I admire its audacity nonetheless.<br /><br />Even if you disagree with the anti-capital punishment message, there's plenty to admire about the film. The acting from the two leads is terrific. Scott Wilson (still one of the most underrated actors ever) is chilling as the nihilistic leader, one who uses his charisma to hide his weaknesses. Robert Blake is also chilling as the more submissive of the two and the one with a conscience. His character obviously has a voice of reason, but is terrified to go against Wilson (theres a good amount of homoerotic subtext on his character's part). The cinematography is terrific, sleek yet gritty and really giving the impression the viewer is watching a documentary. Add another classic score from Quincey Jones, and you have a masterpiece. (9/10)
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 sort of crazy, but I taped from TCM both, this german version of MGM's "Anna Christie", and the english one...but I got to see this one first, 'cos I'd heard that many people thought it was better than the english version.<br /><br />Without having seen the other one, I cannot compare them, but anyway this is an excellent early talkie, with a straight-from-the-heart performance by Garbo. She looks very beautiful in this film, her face shines throughout, especially when Cameraman William Daniels, gets those gorgeous close-ups of her.<br /><br />The atmosphere of the film seems different from the regular MGM stuff made on that era, it looks very similar to french or german expressionistic films from the thirties, well it was directed by a great french director, Monsieur Jacques Feyder, who had directed Garbo in 1929 in "The Kiss".<br /><br />Theo Shall is excellent and gives an absolutelly believable performance as Anna's sweetheart, the hard-boiled, tough, sailor, who's just a kid in man's body. Also Hans Junkermann gives a very fine performance, as Anna's alcoholic father and Salka Viertel too, as a good-hearted old cheap floozie.<br /><br />In all quite an experience, because it's the only film were you can listen to Garbo speak in a foreign language...'cos all the other films she did in either Sweden or Germany, were during the Silent Era.<br /><br />Serious Flick.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: If this movie should be renamed, it should be "The Jackasses of Hazzard." To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.<br /><br />I have been a fan of the "Dukes" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the "Dukes" into trailer trash.<br /><br />Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.<br /><br />The "Dukes" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.<br /><br />My grade: F
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying "Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" or "Flash Gordon". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying "oh, but its too look like a comic book", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.<br /><br />This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.<br /><br />I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.<br /><br />I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.<br /><br />The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.<br /><br />It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.<br /><br />Vote: 7.5 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: The screen writing is so dumb it pains me to have wasted 2 hours of my life I'll never get back (where have I heard this before). The acting is so-so. Things change often enough to keep you watching and waiting for something gruesome to happen. Nevertheless there isn't a single original thing in this movie. While the first Cube was a nerdy horror movie, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in the end, cube zero has picked up on that and tries to retell exactly the same story, except this time it makes an obnoxious point of trying to spoon-feed explanations for every detail that the first movie didn't answer. The comic thing is, the director recycles the exact scenes of the first movie that were somewhat weird, and tries to explain them. But the scenes are just copied over, there is no coherence whatsoever. This script is sooo pointless. I can imagine it being written by some half-wit 15 year old with a baseball cap and a pack of beer for a class project. The best part is in the end, they cripple the 'good' wunderkind guy, and he becomes the retarded fellow in the first movie, and you see him when they find him ('this room is green..') in Cube 1997. Goodie gooodie, clap clap, what a twist. First of all, what about if you haven't seen the first one, this doesn't make any sense you nitwit director. Oh, another great idea: instead of the numbers to identify x,y,z coordinates of the room (cube 1997), this time it is 3 letters, each one giving one of 26 possible coordinate values. Duh. Except now permutations don't make much sense anymore..so he lets the letters disappear before anybody can use them..I want my money back.<br /><br />I guess I had to write this down since there are just so many bad, inconsistent, or just stupid ideas in this movie. Directors/writers should be required to possess some talent.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.<br /><br />Here's a review without pretensions:<br /><br />Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.<br /><br />Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.<br /><br />One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.<br /><br />Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.<br /><br />Unless.<br /><br />You're.<br /><br />Pretentious.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Holy crap this is so hysterical! Why aren't American comedies written like this? For anybody who thinks comedy has to be dumb-- there is more wit and intelligence in the six episodes of this series than in a shelf of novels! Hugh Laurie is a complete hoot. I couldn't believe it was the same guy as House! There are so many great lines and gags in this series you could watch each show dozens of times and still pick up on new things each time. Rowan Atkinson is hilarious as the verbose and put upon butler Edmund. This is my favorite of all the Blackadder series. And Tony Robinson is wonderful as ever as the somewhat obtuse heart of the series, "the oppressed mass" Baldrick. Some of my favorite lines: "When someone messes with a Wellington he really puts his foot in it" and Baldrick explaining how he got his name and cousin Macadder "the top kipper salesman" and homicidal swordsman from Scotland.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I married a Japanese woman 14 years ago. We're still together.<br /><br />However in the 1950's it would never have been as easy.<br /><br />Life in the military had been mined for action, drama, and comedy for years by this point. Mined to death. The mixed relationships gave it new ground to cover. This is old hat today, but then...? Marrying an Asian back then meant you either owed somebody something or you were a freak of some sort. This touched on both possibilities along with the third. Maybe it IS love? <br /><br />Brando did his usual good job. Garner did a better job than he usually does. He's good, but this showed how good he could be. Umecki-chan had a helluva debut here and while I think she earned her statue, she didn't really stretch. It was a role that no one who hadn't been overseas would have recognized and the newness was the corker.<br /><br />The real scene stealer was Red Buttons. Red was the best thing in this film. Bank on it. And the Japanese lifestyles were shown in an admirable light as well.<br /><br />A classic.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Was lucky enough to be an extra in this great film and loved every minute of the filming. Went to the premier in London and had a great chat to Phil, Peter, Martin, and Jon as did my wife.Fantastic after party too. Then a few weeks later had trip to the cinema with members of our bike club. What a brilliant film, it deserves to be up there with all the great biker films. Now we have the DVD Sue my wife can't get enough of it neither can the kids. Get a bit of stick from the club who seem to think I'm a film star now oh well one can only dream. I think they are just jealous. The only downside of the first part of the filming was the weather, rain, rain and more rain but hey we was in Wales. Hopefully there will be a follow up so keep me posted Jon. Danny Beck
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: CB4 was awful, but it may have given Cundieff the idea to it better. More like Spinal Tap than anything else, the film is clever from the start. Surprising anyone who saw it back in the mid nineties. The performances are played for laughs but not so much so that they are cartoon characters, more like Marx brothers. These guys are real and slightly diverse. They react to situations like any of us might. Well, we may not throw a tantrum when our performance hats are late to the gig, or pull guns and beat down a record company exec, but you get the picture. N(n***as) W(with) H(hats) takes itself seriously enough to reel you in, then you're hooked. rent or get this at all costs, even if you're not really into rap music, this will still leave you gassing out loud. Comparing this to CB4 is like comparing George Lucas' Star Wars to Gil Gerards'Buck Rogers' I think you see my point
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Death Lends A Hand" is one of the pivotal early episodes of "Columbo" that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.<br /><br />In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.<br /><br />There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the "lifeline going over the mound of the moon", or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.<br /><br />Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.<br /><br />And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).<br /><br />I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved... <br /><br />A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like "Double Exposure" too, also featuring Robert Culp.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Stella", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and
..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+.<br /><br />
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.<br /><br />The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.<br /><br />'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real. <br /><br />Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Horror Gods Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi should be more than sufficient a reason for any Genre-lover to watch a film, and, even though the most convincing one they are not the only reason to watch this particular little Sci-Fi/Horror gem. While Lambert Hillyer's "The Invisible Ray" of 1936 does not nearly share the brilliance of other contemporary films starring Karloff ("Frankenstein, "Bride Of Frankenstein", "The Mummy",...) or Lugosi ("White Zombie", "Island Of The Lost Souls", "Dracula",...), or both ("The Black Cat", "The Raven",...), this is doubtlessly a highly entertaining film that no lover of cult cinema should consider missing. Compared to other Universal Horror pictures, the storyline seems a bit silly, but in a delightful manner. Karloff and Lugosi, of course, shine as always, and the film furthermore profits from great sceneries and an excellent photography. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a brilliant scientist who has invented a technique to look into the past through a telescope, and finds out that a meteor has hit the earth thousands of years ago. Stunned by Rukh's invention, the celebrated French scientist Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), invites him to join an expedition in to find the meteor. In Africa, Rukh makes a discovery that is capable of causing great beneficence and great destruction alike... It is somewhat odd that Karloff, who was in fact British, plays a Hungarian scientist here while Lugosi, who was Hungarian, plays a French Scientist, but they are both excellent as usual. As far as I am concerned, these two Horror Deities could have probably been filmed reading the telephone directory, and I am sure they would have made something out of it - either man is an icon of the Horror genre, and seeing them together is a treat for every fan of the genre. By the way, this is one of the few films, if not the only one, in which it is obvious that Lugosi was actually taller than Karloff. Frances Drake makes a very good female lead in her role of Dr Rukh's beautiful young wife. The rest of the performances are also good, if not particularly worth mentioning. Other than the casting of Karloff and Lugosi, the film's greatest qualities are probably the atmosphere due to great settings and photography, as well as the wonderfully cheesy and highly entertaining storyline. My main complaint is that I would have wished for more screen time for Lugosi, and for his role to have a bit more significance. He is fantastic as always, but his role could have been bigger, and more sinister. Otherwise, "The Invisible Ray" is a wonderfully entertaining film which should satisfy every lover of classic Horror/Sci-Fi cinema, and a must-see for all my fellow Lugosi/Karloff fans.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I love this movie. My only disappointment was that some of the original songs were changed.<br /><br />It's true that Frank Sinatra does not get a chance to sing as much in this movie but it's also nice that it's not just another Frank Sinatra movie where it's mostly him doing the singing.<br /><br />I actually thought it was better to use Marlon Brando's own voice as he has the voice that fits and I could not see someone with this great voice pulling off the gangster feel of his voice.<br /><br />Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat" is a foot-tappin', sing-a-long that I just love. He is a hard act to follow with his version and I still like his the best.<br /><br />Vivian Blaine is just excellent in this part and "Adelaide's Lament" is my favorite of her songs.<br /><br />I really thought Jean Simmons was perfect for this part. Maybe I would not have first considered her but after seeing her in the part, it made sense.<br /><br />Michael Kidd's choreography is timeless. If it were being re staged in the year 2008, I would not change a thing.<br /><br />I find that many times something is lost from the stage version to the movie version but this kept the feel of the stage, even though it was on film.<br /><br />I thought the movie was well cast. I performed in regional versions of this and it's one of my favorites of that period.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is a run-of-the-mill nature porn movie. By porn, I don't mean sex. I mean gratuitous images of (for example) thousands of birds together, or hundreds of walruses, or a giant waterfall or iceberg. Several of the shots in the film seem to exist solely to make their way into the trailer, to get people into theatres to see it for all of ten seconds before it disappears never to be seen again for the rest of the film.<br /><br />There is almost no plot in this film. Told to expect a story of three animal families, "better than March of the Penguins", the movie simply doesn't deliver. The blame rests in three key areas: (1) the writers who gave James Earl Jones some of the worst lines to narrate in nature film history, (2) the music team who over-dramatized everything to tell you what you should be feeling, even when the film fails to motivate, and lastly but most importantly (3) the editors who had the story jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason, no continuity, no flow, sucking the life out of the entire film -- a film about life. When we got to the whales halfway through the film, I sunk back in my seat with dread, hoping against hope that the film was more than halfway through, and that I'd be able to survive the long endurance test along with the animals on screen.<br /><br />There was also almost no science in the film at all. They attributed hot and cold (all of it, not just the seasons) solely to the Earth's tilt, ignoring the fact that we'd have even greater extremes from location to location if there was no tilt because the poles would never warm. And it would be worst if we had no rotation (relative to revolution) like Mercury, because half the planet would bake and the other half would freeze. Then near the end they used the phrase "humans and animals", as if humans are not animals, somehow exempt from the laws of nature. So much for science.<br /><br />I must credit the camera work, however, and again that is why I call this nature porn. Everything from super-slow-motion to what appears to be a finely-tuned mechanically-controlled time-lapse photography, was put to use to provide some (and I caution, only "some") stunning moments that do raise the bar compared to other nature films. That said, I am not convinced that it was all nature on the screen. Some of the shots showing the great watering hole in Africa, as it changed from season to season seemed like CGI to me. A director might have expected such suspicion and built in other shots to demonstrate that it's all natural, but they didn't do that.<br /><br />For a film about Earth, I had expected a lot more of Earth to be shown. What we saw was pristine. We had to take the narrator's word for it that some species are at risk due to climate changes. They didn't show us evidence of it. They didn't show us Alberta's poisonous tailing ponds visible from space. They didn't show us the great Pacific trash whorl. They didn't show us a nighttime picture of human light pollution around the planet. These are as much Earth as anything else. Why cover it up for a feel-good whitewash? <br /><br />My last criticism of the content is of predation. Any time a predator was shown on the screen actually hunting prey, the music turned almost into that Mt Doom scene from Lord of the Rings, with the predator portrayed as some kind of Sauron ultimate-evil character. But predators aren't evil. They perform a necessary service, ensuring that the best members of the prey species survive. We are predators ourselves. Any time the predator caught the prey, we immediately cut away to something else, to sort of pretend that death and eating don't really happen. The final insult was the "dad" polar bear being left to die after he dared to try to eat. "Bad bear! Bad!", you can almost hear them say.<br /><br />On to the presentation itself. My theatre may be in part to blame for this, but maybe not. I had expected to see something with greater clarity than I could see on my own HDTV LCD at home. But the picture was blurry, and was presented in the same 16:9 ratio I could get at home, instead of the wider ratio many films come in these days. And during one action-packed scene near the end, the film (I can't imagine this happening digitally, from how it looked) was damaged, and we lost several of the colors, eventually blacking out completely. That repeated about three times.<br /><br />If they actually do plant a tree on my behalf, it will have been worth it. But how will I know?
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.
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 is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.<br /><br />This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.<br /><br />The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie! <br /><br />Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The Drug Years actually suffers from one of those aspects to mini-series or other kinds of TV documentaries run over and over again for a couple of weeks on TV. It's actually not long enough, in a way. All of the major bases in the decades are covered, and they're all interesting to note as views into post-modern history and from different sides. But it almost doesn't cover enough, or at least what is covered at times is given a once over when it could deserve more time. For example, the information and detail in part three about the whole process and business unto itself of shipping mass amounts of drugs (partly the marijuana, later cocaine) is really well presented, but there are more details that are kept at behest of how much time there is to cover.<br /><br />Overall though the documentary does shed enough light on how drugs, pop-culture, government intervention, the upper classes and lower classes and into suburbia, all felt the wave of various drugs over the years, and the interplay between all was very evident. Nobody in the film- except for the possibility of small hints with the pot)- goes to endorse drugs outright, but what is shown are those in archival clips about the honesty of what is at times fun, and then tragic, about taking certain drugs. The appearances of various staunch, ridiculously anti-drug officials does hammer some points down hard- with even in such an overview of the drug cultures and America's connection as a whole- as there is really only one major point that is made a couple of times by one of the interviewees. The only way to really approach the issue of drugs is not 'just say no', because as the war on drugs has shown it is not as effective as thought. It is really just to come clean on all sides about all the drugs and the people who may be hypocritical about them (as, for example, oxycontin continues on in the marketplace).<br /><br />Is it with the great interest and depth of a Ken Burns documentary? No, but for some summertime TV viewing for the young (i.e. my age) who will view a lot of this as almost ancient history despite most of it being no more than a generation ago, as well as for the 'old' who can reflect some decades later about the great peaks, careless times, and then the disillusionment prodded more by the same media that years earlier propagated and advertised it. There are those who might find the documentary to be particularly biased, which is not totally untrue, but it does attempt to get enough different takes on the social, political, and entertainment conditions of drugs interweaving (for better or obvious worse) for enough of a fascinating view.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My very favorite character in films, but in nearly all of them the character of Zorro has a small bit of cloth as a mask and if the villain`s can`t tell who is under that cloth then they are daft.<br /><br />But in Reed Hadley`s "Zorro`s Fighting Legion" (serial 1939) the mask fills his whole face making it a real mystery as to who Zorro really is.<br /><br />But anyway Zorro is one of the best character`s in films and to bring it up to date l think Anthony Hopkins in "The Mask of Zorro" (1998) is a delight.<br /><br />My interest in films is vast, but l have a real liking for the serial`s of the 30s/40s....<br /><br />Bond2a
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Absolutely fantastic trash....this one has it all: nudity, good fight scenes, gore, action, explosions etc. It also stars the wonderful Belinda Mayne as Ingrid - not Olga as the other reviewer pointed out - although Olga turns into Ingrid later on in the film (you'll have to watch it to see what I mean).<br /><br />I won't bother to go into the story as it's far too long winded and not very interesting. The relationship between Ingrid and her brother Bo (Robert Ginty) is interesting - watch the towel stealing scene to see what I mean.<br /><br />The fight scenes were at once quite good and then spoilt by some really shoddy gore effects that looked like they were done by the team who did City of the Walking Dead (i.e. strange coloured blood gushing out of neck wounds).<br /><br />I'd advise fans of low budget trash to check it out if they can track down a copy - its pretty rare though and I couldn't ever see anyone bothering to re-release it so it'll become all the rarer in a few years.<br /><br />Anyway I'd recommend it solely for Belinda Mayne's great nude scenes! That lady's a fox!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I watched this film sort of by accident, having bought it as the B side on The Omega Man DVD. The Omega Man was a bit of a disappointment - except for the beginning, which was clearly the inspiration for 28 Days Later, the rest of it is just the stuff of TV movies. But Soylent Green is in a whole other league. I bet this is one of Tarantino's favourites. There are at least 3 scenes in the film that I've never seen anything like before. Heston casually getting into bed with the "furniture" while discussing something else completely unrelated! A whole crowd of people being scooped up by a fleet of mechanical diggers! A priest taking confession and being shot by the confessor. Ok maybe that's been done since - but there aren't many films that are so consistently original like this. And what the heck is going on between Heston and Edward G. Robinson? Is this the most unlikely gay couple ever, or what? Luckily, I saw this film without knowing the ending - which apparently is rare. Then I watched it again, and enjoyed all the little clues that make the long early scenes worthwhile. A very nice script - and some great sets too. Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . .
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.<br /><br />THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A very "straight" nice old lady, desperate for money to save her house and possessions, grows "pot" in her house, smokes it with a few old-biddy friends and then sells it. That's the story for this low-key comedy, emphasizing the absurdity of the situation and some of the humor the predicament brings. For much of the film, it works. The humor isn't of the laugh-out-loud variety but it does keep you entertained for an hour-and-a- half, so I guess it serves its purpose.<br /><br />There ARE funny moments and Brenda Blethyn is fun to watch in the lead role. But the ending really ruined a "cute" movie with insultingly-bad messages that only the ultra-liberals of the film world would like to see happen.<br /><br />Like most people, I would prefer a happy ending, too, but it should not all warm and fuzzy for those who blatantly break the law. Also in here are the typical (1) children out of wedlock but that poses no problem and is deemed okay; (2) clerics portrayed as morally weak people; and (3) even a medical doctor who gets stoned, too! <br /><br />Hello? And reviewers here blast Hollywood? This is exhibit A how a secular society has lowered the standards in the UK and Europe in general. Hey, people: at least have a trace of morality instead of nothing but a Timothy Leary "If it feels good, do it" message.
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 Not a Love Song.<br /><br />My one word summary of this film would be `Excellent'.<br /><br />It probably won't appeal to the mass movie watching public it's a<br /><br />film that forces you to participate. You observe, think, and question.<br /><br />Comparisons could be made with Deliverance (Topic/Theme) and<br /><br />perhaps with The Blair Witch Project for overall filming style.<br /><br />However this film stands unique against both.<br /><br />The cinematography effects (solarisation, freeze frame, blur etc)<br /><br />have been seen before but they are used most effectively in this<br /><br />film to underpin the natural tension of the story.<br /><br />Acting is raw, menacing and utterly believable.<br /><br />The real theme of the film is about friendship; the title really gives<br /><br />the game away. It's probably not the kind of friendship that most of<br /><br />us have experienced or indeed would want to.<br /><br />It is a love song.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Two sorcerers battle in the fourth dimension,one(Brian Thompson as a Kabal)trying to destroy the Earth,the other(Jeffrey Combs as a Anton Mordrid)trying to save it."Doctor Mordrid" is an enjoyable fantasy fare which offers plenty of cheese.The plot is pretty silly and the gore is completely absent,but the film is very short and entertaining.So if you have enough time to kill give this one a look.My rating:7 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: This game was really great and quite a challenge. It has a great, spooky story line and the graphics are also very good. I would recommend this game to all Horror fans and is very gripping from start to finish. The only problem with this game is that i would have liked more weapons but thats just me.<br /><br /> A truly great game for RPG and Shoot'em'up fans.<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 felt this movie started out well. The acting was spot on and I felt for all the characters situation, even though the true family unit was not completely revealed. We never got enough info on the father to truly feel his pain for his whole involvement or the build up for his animosity with Tobe. I mean in one scene you see him admiring her for tensity and in another scene he just about takes her head off. Another problem with the movie was it just unraveled and lost all focus by the end, and I was begging for it to just be over with. Any movie with such a long drawn out , and painful ending should never get an automatic rating of 7 or above just for the acting. We are looking at the over all quality of the movie experience. In the case of this movie the end is so bad I seriously contemplated just walking out of the theater. This movie pulled me in then just spit me out.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: What are the odds of a "Mermaid" helium balloon traveling from Yuba City, Ca.(on Nov 8th,1993) and landing 4 Days later,(on Nov. 12) in MERMAID, Prince Edward Island, Canada.(Approx. 4000 miles). This is a great movie. It is based on a true story. This movie helps not only children cope with losses, but older people as well. Hope everyone will enjoy it!!! Rhonda
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.<br /><br />The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.<br /><br />"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .<br /><br />Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: with this ABC family attempt of the hit blockbuster "cheaper by the dozen" comes an obnoxious amount of corny dialogue, shallow plot lines, and cheesy comebacks. With about two good actors among many wanna-be's, this movie was a major disappointment. Its a Hollywood-wannabe ditto of an already bad plot. Then, because they needed a lot of actors, that meant that they'd probably be more lenient. So the acting wasn't five-star. The plot moved fairly fast, and the twists were bad and had horrible timing. The junction of characters and the "end relationships" were also too mushy and clichéd for me. Spare yourself and rent something better.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.<br /><br />First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.<br /><br />Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).<br /><br />The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more! <br /><br />In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all.
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 heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, "Planet Earth," narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)' a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.<br /><br />Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the "human side" of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.<br /><br />'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.<br /><br />Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for "Planet Earth." Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: My father grew grew up watching George Reeves as Superman and when I was a little kid he had episodes on VHS and let me view them including this movie (passing them down in the family if you will), and I loved it.<br /><br />Clark Kent and Lois Lane get sent to a small town with and oil mine and from the mine emerge mole men radioactive and targeted by the town assumed to be deadly and it's up to Superman to stop this mayhem.<br /><br />It's just so wonderful and fun to view. The old style special effects and sound - the crew pulled off such a beauty with such little technology. George Reeves was my hero when I was a little kid, and I'm 16 now, it just goes to show how timeless and classic these adventures are.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Fine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the "happy" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The story for Hare Rama Hare Krishna actually came to Dev Anand's mind when he saw hippies and their fallen values in Kathmandu where he was on a visit after the protests against his previous Prem Pujari in Calcutta. He was low in spirits because his film had been opposed and some had burnt Prem Pujari's posters. But the life of hippies re ignited a story in Dev's mind to be made into a film.<br /><br />This was Dev Anand's perhaps best directorial effort. The film was a blockbuster super hit at the box office and Zeenat Aman as Dev's sister made a tremendous impact.<br /><br />This film was Dev Anand's call to the nation to keep up their moral values.<br /><br />It is about a Montereal based Indian family and the brother's role is a very affectionate one for his sister. But the parents quarrel and separate leaving Prashant(Dev) with mother and Jasbir(Zeenat) with father. She is repeatedly told that her mother and brother are dead and she eventually believes that she will never see Prashant again.<br /><br />She is ill treated by her step mother and she runs away from home. Dev grows up to be a pilot and he learns that Jasbir is in Kathmandu with certain hippies.<br /><br />To reunite with his sister, Dev travels to Kathmandu and meets Shanti(Mumtaz) who was to later marry him and also Janice who in reality is Jasbir with a new name and new identity. She has forgotten her childhood and Dev too.<br /><br />Dev has to get his sister back amongst all other happenings which include his being suspected as a thief in Kathmandu and the people are after his life.<br /><br />This was a story well directed and acted-both by Dev Anand. We see more of Zeenat Aman than of Mumtaz. But the music by Rahul Dev Burman was well composed. Dev had first offered the music to be composed by Sachin Dev Burman but Burman Da did not want Dev to do the film. He was very close to Dev and his earlier film Prem Pujari, though was good, but had been opposed in Calcutta. Burman Da wanted Dev to try a lighter subject as he thought hippie cultist film might reignite people's anger against Dev. But Dev continued with the film reassuring Burman Da and the film was indeed a success.<br /><br />R D Burman had Asha Bhosle sing the award winning Dum Maro Dum. Kanchi re Kanchi re was another good number.<br /><br />Overall it is a good film.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.<br /><br />Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.<br /><br />Around 7 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: When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time Avoid at all costs.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Horrible, Horrible, Horrible do not waste your money to rent this movie. Its like a low budget made for TV Canadian movie. Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen and there have been many others out there. This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the DVD player or VCR. :~( . Is it possible to write ten lines? The acting was horrific. It had absolutely no flow. I saw the made for TV movie on the BTK killer and it was much better(in comparison to this one). I am not sure what they were going for in producing this film but if it was to educate us or tell a story about the BTK killer they missed by a mile. It appeared to be more of a infomercial for animal rights.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Along with Patrick McGoohan and Robert Culp, Jack Cassidy was an iconic Columbo villain. The very first "proper" episode of Columbo, following two standalone pilots, "Murder By The Book" is not far off classic status.<br /><br />Jack Cassidy plays Ken Franklin, one half of a murder mystery writing partnership. His partner Jim is the talented one, whereas Ken has no talent other than the gift of the gab and a skill for promoting the books. As soon as Jim has decided he no longer requires Ken's marketing skills, Ken hatches a plot to kill Jim. Except it's not a new plot, it's actually the implementation in real life of a murder storyline originally intended for one of their books.<br /><br />It doesn't take Columbo long to work out that Ken is the murderer, although unfortunately another murder has to take place (Ken romances and then kills a key witness) before Columbo has enough evidence to secure a conviction.<br /><br />Nothing whatsoever wrong with "Murder By The Book", but it's not quite top-notch. I would just give "Publish Or Perish" the edge over this: both episodes feature Jack Cassidy and the world of publishing, but "Publish Or Perish" is a fraction more tense and unpredictable. But this is still a great episode.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.<br /><br />A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.<br /><br />While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.<br /><br />A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.<br /><br />And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....
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 this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought "What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).<br /><br />So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.<br /><br />Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.<br /><br />I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.<br /><br />Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.<br /><br />P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Pinjar is a genuinely good film, with great acting, good narrative, good presentation, touching emotions, etc.<br /><br />It seems to me that the quality of films that Bollywood is producing is quite improving these days, and this film is one evidence.<br /><br />No Bollywood movie that I can remember of made such an impact on me - I was literally thinking about the movie for hours - marvelling at the various emotional situations that test the human in a human.<br /><br />The film rests on the great acting of Urmilla Matondkar, and also some from Manoj Bajpai. Urmilla plays a girl in North India in the background of the partition, and all troubles seem sweet if compared with the problems she happens to face. <br /><br />A must-see film. A technically superior Bollywood product, which I feel is comparable to the best movies coming out of other countries in the world.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy.After his great fist movie called El fondo del mar and the spectacular TV pro-gramme Los simuladores,Damian Szifron made another great work.Tiempo de valientes looks,for moments,a movie made in Hollywood.Diego Peretti and Luis Luque are two great actors and here,they have great performances.The movie is very fun and funny and it has superb moments.Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy that I totally recommend if you wanna have a great time.And I have to congrats Szifron for all the talent he has.<br /><br />Rating:9
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.<br /><br />Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry.
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 is about development. People growing and people fading, people surprising and people disappointing. It has it all and more. There is hope, frustration, injustice, justice, love and hate. It is truly a classic drama that has fantastic performances from the whole cast but especially Whoopi Goldberg in her debut role.<br /><br />This movie made me feel very human and proud of it, and I suggest that this movie should be mandatory each Saturday in all prisons in the world - it touches your compassion. Rating: 10 of 10.<br /><br />PS: I admit it: I shed a tear of joy during the final scene.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: What can one say about a film that has one of the blackest, most nihilistic, and occasionally most weirdly -I wont say 'sympathetic'..I will say 'charismatic' villains in the history of the Cinema, and the best sword fight since Flynn and Fairbanks were in their heyday? This is an epic about a stubborn, sometimes foolish, incredibly courageous and honest mans fight for his honor and freedom against tyranny. I loved it. John Hurt and Tim Roth were great villains. Jessica Lange was very moving, tender, and sensual.
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 a classic. I would have to say that this movie caught the best of a working man who learns from his mistakes. if we could all get along and learn the way everyone in this movie did. It had an important part of showing how family is an important part of life, and how pride can cause you to lose something important in life if we can not find a "BIG THROAT" and swallow are pride.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.) <br /><br />The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).<br /><br />The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.<br /><br />This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)<br /><br />There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.<br /><br />Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "Godzilla vs King Ghidorah" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about "Japan is great" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Left Behind is an incredible waste of more than 17 million dollars. The acting is weak and uninspiring, the story even weaker. The audience is asked to believe the totally implausible and many times laughable plot line and given nothing in return for their good faith. Not only is the film poorly acted and scripted it is severely lacking in all the technical areas of filmmaking. The production design does nothing to help the credibility of the action. The effects are wholly unoriginal and flat. The lighting and overall continuity are inexcusably awful; even compared to movies with a tenth of the budget. However none of this will matter in that millions of families will no doubt embrace the film for it's wholesomeness and it's religious leanings; and who can blame them. However it is unfortunate that they will be forced to accept 3rd rate amatuer filmmaking.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.<br /><br />Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.<br /><br />I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Well , I come from Bulgaria where it 's almost impossible to have a tornado but my imagination tells me to be "very , very afraid"!!!This guy (Devon Sawa) has done a great job with this movie!I don't know exactly how old he was but he didn't act like a child (WELL DONE)!Now about the tornado-it wasn't very realistic but frightens you!If you want to have a nice time in front of the telly - this is the movie!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: What can I add that the previous comments haven't already said. This is a great film and the Light Sabre duel Star Wars tribute has to be seen to be believed!! There are moments of genius throughout this movie, if you can, SEE IT NOW! Thanks again to Rick Baker who gave me this movie many years ago!
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: "CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.<br /><br />The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. <br /><br />Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?<br /><br />Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. <br /><br />Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. <br /><br />Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.<br /><br />The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.<br /><br />The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).<br /><br />Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.<br /><br />What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?<br /><br />They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.<br /><br />I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | negative | positive |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Written by the writer who penned the excellent Murder Rooms series which chronicled ACD's adventures with Doctor Joseph Bell, I was looking forward to this and I wasn't disappointed. It was quite slow moving, with a lot of emphasis on Doyle's frustration at Sherlock Holmes which was very accurate and excellently portrayed. It was an interesting character study and very well shot ( on digital video, unusual for a period piece ). The acting was excellent all round, particularly Tim McInnery and Brian Cox although the actor who portrayed ACD, whose name I cannot remember impressed me no end. An excellent character study which has about the same amount of twists as any normal Sherlock Holmes case. Do see this if you get the chance
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it.
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |
Question: Does the following movie review have positive or negative in sentiment?
Review: Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable
Answer: The sentiment of the above review is | positive | negative |