clf_label
class label 2
classes | instructions
stringclasses 1
value | content
sequencelengths 1
1
| answer_prompt
stringclasses 1
value | proxy_clf_label
class label 2
classes | gen_target
stringclasses 2
values | proxy_gen_target
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to \"wish or hate away.\" As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.<br /><br />This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.<br /><br />Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it! <br /><br />The plot just barely dodges being called \"corny\". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.<br /><br />So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was \"preaching to the converted,\" not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its \"rat\" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of \"Well, Jewish people are like that too.\" Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called \"Hebrew\" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's \"spin\" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a \"5\" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say \"That's what I meant to do all along!\" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This is what I wrote to some friends earlier:<br /><br />HOLY CRAP, The Grudge is, honest to God, one of the scariest films I've ever seen! I am either getting very soft in my old age, or Sam Raimi and Ghost Pictures did a KICK A** job! (Can't wait for Boogeyman!)<br /><br />I was very scared sitting in the dark theater and wished I had someone, anyone, sitting next to me (except the protagonist in Grudge. I saw the movie by myself.) I swear, there were many many jump scenes that were NOT expected! I felt foolish but my nerves did not care! I was on edge the entire movie, from the opening credits, and the music was fantastically scary. I keep thinking of that sound, though, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!<br /><br />I actually gasped aloud a few times, and cried, \"oh\" at one scene!! Oh, yeah, I even half-covered my eyes a few times! Word to the wise, though: I thought some of the scenes were a little psychotic. My DH hated Event Horizon and thought whoever wrote it was sick and psycho, but I don't remember the movie so can't compare.<br /><br />I can't say I \"enjoyed\" this movie b/c I was terrified, but it was very very good and scary. The ending scene, too...whoa! For being a 32-year-old-mommy, I think I may have nightmares from this movie, especially because of that sound. Please get out of my head ;)<br /><br />In summary, this is not a slasher flick like I grew up with (Jason, Freddy). This is a most-of-the-time spooky movie. Perfect for Halloween.<br /><br />Two great trailers for this movie were Boogeyman and The Ring 2!!"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"(spoilers)<br /><br />I was blown away by this movie. I've been renting on movielink for a bit, and decided to check this movie out. Alot of boxing movies seem to overblow the blood. In this movie, it shows it at the amature level. Though I do wish that perhaps more attention would have been brought to perhaps her improving her grades. The movie points out the problems some families face with gender.<br /><br />I was a bit concerned with the ending. But the ending wasn't a disappointment either.<br /><br />I think it was pretty clear by the title that she'd win. What was unexpected was that the two of them got back together sort of at the end.<br /><br />Loved the score for some of the scenes. Highly recommended.<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />Quality: 9/10<br /><br />Entertainment: 10/10<br /><br />Replayable: 10/10"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing. <br /><br />Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer. <br /><br />Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, \"I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it.\" but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, \"That would have been funny in the early sixties.\" So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.<br /><br />Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.<br /><br />Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the \"family business\" leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.<br /><br />As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.<br /><br />But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of \"Old Money\" that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)<br /><br />So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The pioneering Technicolor Cinematography (Winner of Special Technical Achievement Oscar) is indeed enchanting. Add an endless variety of glamorous costumes and a romantic cinema dream team like Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer, and you've got a rather pleasant \"picture\".<br /><br />Unfortunately the contrived plot as well as the over-blown acting leave much to be desired. Still, there have not been any more breathtaking Technicolor films before this one (1936), and very few since then, that can top this breathtaking visual experience of stunning colors. Cinema fans who have enjoyed the glorious color cinematography in \"Robin Hood\" (1938), \"Jesse James\" (1939) and \"Gone With The Wind\" (1939), will not be disappointed in the fantastic work done here. \"The Garden Of Allah\" will always be synonymous with brilliant color cinematography."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Working from a script written in part by Nicholas Pileggi, best known for writing the book Wiseguy, which he adapted into the movie Goodfellas, and for writing the book and screenplay Casino, director Harold Becker shows how connected circles scratch each other's backs, even in the command of a comparatively honorable mayor like Pappas, who is regarded as a presidential prospect. As Cusack follows the paper trail of the dead mobster's probation report, his skepticism is agitated. How did this violent young man get probation rather than a jail sentence? We meet the other players in the plot, not the least of which is Danny Aiello, the political boss of Brooklyn, and Tony Franciosa, the Mafia boss whose nephew was shot dead. How and why these people are affiliated I leave to the movie to divulge, though there are never any misgivings that they are.<br /><br />The narrative is told generally through the eyes of the Cusack character, a visionary from Louisiana who admires his boss and hopes to learn from him. Much is made by everyone of bureaucratic knowledge passed down through the generations. Some of the dialogue is ungracefully erudite, but considering I just described the building blocks of the story as bureaucratic knowledge, one can't say it doesn't work. The shooting case builds against the seasoning of two other issues on the mayor's desk: a charge by Aiello for a subway stop and an off-ramp in Brooklyn to aid a new banking center, and the city's bid for the next Democratic convention. Individual idiosyncrasies are also explored, including Aiello's emotional bond with the music of Rogers and Hammerstein.<br /><br />Much also is made of menschkeit, a Yiddish expression, which, Pappas explains to his deputy, is about the bond of honor between two men, about what happens between the two hands in a handshake. This connection doesn't mean much to Bridget Fonda, the lawyer for the policeman's association who defends the dead cop's honor and fights for his widow's pension even as incriminating evidence appears. Little by little, the deputy mayor comes to grasp that menschkeit is such an influential notion that it outclasses he law.<br /><br />There are various scenes of hard impact, including one where the Brooklyn boss comes home for lunch in the middle of the day, his wife asserts her interest through the medium of the dish she has cooked, and then the Mafia boss drops in by surprise. There is also a compelling, and markedly conjectural, late scene between the mayor and his deputy.<br /><br />One scene handled with delicacy is comprised of the mayor's decision to speak at the funeral of the slain child, in a Harlem church. His advisers tell him he won't be wanted there. But he goes anyway, and cranks himself up for a spiel of unabashed hyperbole, Pacino and his character both.<br /><br />It gets an impressive reaction from the congregation, but the mayor knows, and his deputy knows, that it was artificial, and the way they scrupulously evade discussing it, in the limousine taking them away, is a subtle employment of composure and innuendo. This is a script that knows it has to supply Pacino with the reason why most of his fans go to see him, and immediately follows its quota with the reality that silence has much more inherent meaning than speech.<br /><br />Pacino and Cusack are convincing together throughout the movie, the older man unbreakable and aware, the younger one anxious to learn, but with ideals that don't sway. Pacino is innate with his down-to-earth capacity to marry common sense and inventive imagination, inspired flair and matter-of-fact realism. Cusack moves very freely in spite of his dark defensiveness.<br /><br />The Bridget Fonda subplot development is unnecessary, but it is a result of veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader's otherwise shrewdly perceptive belief in the worth of every character, and each is fleshed into earnest embodiments. Aiello, for instance, is a highlight because he evokes his character's joie de vivre and sensitivity to his environment."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The first mistake you make in titling a film is to use \"of the living dead\" without really having a budget for real zombie FX. Sure, this was a low budget zombie flick - really low budget. I thought it was a film school project. Amateur actors and amateur effects.<br /><br />It was really not too bad considering the above, and it presented an interesting twist to the zombie genre. If you are going to get an \"R\" for violence, you might as well give us some good shots of the babes being attacked. The women were so little used in this film that it could almost be classified as \"gay interest.\"<br /><br />And, I am staying out of Oakland. There was a heck of a lot of shooting going on and no cops in sight!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Me and my sister rented this movie because we were in the mood for something trashy and not so demanding to watch. However the movie greatly exceeded my very low expectations.<br /><br />It is so much more than just a representation of a century. It has very real portrayals of the characters within it and most of the actors do an amazing job. The different stories are baked together with actual footage from the time that gives it a very unique touch. While watching it I really felt that I CARED about what happened to the characters.<br /><br />I would also like to give endless amounts of praise to Julia Stiles in her portrayal of Katie, she was great in a way that stood out!<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone.."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This episode introduced the Holodeck to the TNG world. The Jarada have to be contacted and a precise greeting must be delivered or it would greatly insult them. A tired Picard decides to take a trip into the Holodeck and a wonderful adventure begins. The settings are superb and almost movie like. Alas, the Jarada probe sent shortly thereafter damages the holodeck and all it's safety devices stop working. Picard and now guests must outwit the mobsters of gangland 40s America and return to the Jarada rendezvous. Picard greets the Jarada correctly and a new day dawns between Humanity and the Jarada. This gem of a first season episode set the holodeck for many interesting and unusual adventures to be had there"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.<br /><br />Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.<br /><br />OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.<br /><br />As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.<br /><br />The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.)."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched \"Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America\". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of \"What's up Tiger Lily?\""
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"What a wonderful movie, eligible for so many labels it never gets: Science fiction, film-noir, with a script and dialog of high intelligence which assumes an educated, cultured audience.....the kind of English language movie only done in pre-1960 England (and shown only in USA art movie houses when it first arrived), and never, ever done in the USA.<br /><br />Main characters in The Man In The White Suit(1951) starring Sir Alec Guiness and Joan Greenwood routinely use polysyllabic, science reference words like \"polymer\" and discuss and explain concepts of chemistry like \"long chain molecules\" and then communicate the importance of these to the average man and the benefits science provides him.<br /><br />The Man In The White Suit (1951) is the opposite of the video-game explosion movies which now (2009) dominate world cinema, and certainly dominate major USA cinema.......it's a carefully acted, intelligently told story delivered by gifted and believable educated English actors (who play educated, accomplished people), and it's all done with comedy, charm, pathos, and sense of irony which ancient Greek dramatists would have approved of.<br /><br />Everybody should see this movie, and someday, somehow, some worthy filmmaker and his supporters should make another like it.<br /><br />It's wonderful."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.<br /><br />Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:<br /><br />\"That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?\"<br /><br />The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that \"it didn't work.\" He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,<br /><br />\"But Sidney, we want to stop it too.\"<br /><br />Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.<br /><br />Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.<br /><br />Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:<br /><br />\"Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you.\"<br /><br />I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got \"a shot in the arm of hope.\" (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says \"it's more than I'd hoped for...\"<br /><br />"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This movie was a brilliant concept. It was original, cleverly written and of high appeal to those of us who aren't really 'conformist' movie pickers. Don't get me wrong - there are some great movies that have wide appeal, but when you move into watching a movie based on \"everyone else is watching it\" - you know you're either a tween or don't really have an opinion. This had a lovely subtle humor - despite most people probably looking only at the obvious. The actors portrayed their characters with aplomb and I thought there was a lot more \"personal\" personality in this film. Has appeal for kids, as well as adults. Esp. nice to find a good movie that's not filled with sexual references and drug innuendos! A great film, not to be overlooked based on public consumption. This one is a must buy."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I saw this movie when it first came out. It was an official selection for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and I voted for it for best picture.<br /><br />Justine Priestley is hot as the psychotic, but complex Amanda. This is not your ordinary psycho movie. Lots of interesting and original slants on the genre. Sort of a \"Fatal Attraction\" for the younger set with some great blues music mixed in as the object of Amanda's affection is married to an up and coming blues singer who has less time for her husband as her career takes off.<br /><br />"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Absolutely the very first film that scared me to death. I happened catch it when my older brother(r.i.p.) was watching it. It was on a black and white TV and not really a good picture but it got me interested. Shortly after, my folks bought a color set and, as luck would have it, The Million Dollar Movie was showing it one Sunday.<br /><br />I had forgotten most of the plot, but it did not take long to catch up...and I got so scared I had a hard time sleeping that night! I mean sure it was just a movie but it involved a creature that not only came from space, but you could not hear it, or see it...and once it got hold of you it was too late. Even now, after all this time it still sends a shiver up my spine. A true classic, and even better a classic that I have seen scare the pants off a new generation!<br /><br />Long live The Blob!"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"When you read the summary of this film, you might come to think that this is something of an odd film and in some ways it is, for the primary character of this film, Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) is haunted by visions and hallucinations. The visions Gerard see are all (more or less) subtle hints to what will happen to him as the story continues and it is great fun for the viewer to try and figure out the symbolism used in the film. Despite the use of symbolism and a couple of hints to the ending of the film, the film maintains a very high level of excitement throughout and does not get boring for one minute. This is mostly due to the great performances of Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk (Christine) and the great direction of the whole by Paul Verhoeven. His directing style is clearly visible and one can say, looking at it from different angles, that 'De Vierde Man' is a typical Verhoeven film. It will not only seem typical for people familiar with his American films because of the nudity and the graphic violent scenes, but it will also seem typical for people familiar with his Dutch films, because of the same things and his talent to tell a great story. When people watch Verhoevens American films, short sighted people might say, he has no talent in telling a good story and only focuses on blood and sex. That is what some people think, whereas I think that he is a very talented director who tries to convey a deeper message in each with each film. Although not a good film, Hollow Man (his last American film) is an example that Verhoeven can do more than science fiction splatter movies and maybe companies should trust him more and offer him more various films to helm. He needs that. Just watch his Dutch films. Not only do they show that he needs a certain amount of freedom, but they also show that he has remarkable talent. 'De Vierde Man' brought him one step closer to Hollywood and is certainly one of his best.<br /><br />8 out of 10"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This show is not clever. That's basically what it boils down to. The \"original humor\" that these writers try to pull off to avoid completely biting off the rest of the worlds bush bashing is just unfunny. In another comment, someone quotes a couple hilarious lines. The standout for me was George H.W. Bush telling the kids they're not supposed to watch any TV besides Fox News. Wow. I thought the episodes I saw were bad. The fact that this line is a high point for the series is pathetic.<br /><br />My problem with drivel like this sad excuse for political satire is that these folks are getting a second season. I'm a liberal republican and I know Bush hasn't been a good president. We all do. But that's no excuse for putting out this utterly poopie waste of time. I place these writers on the same level as the geniuses behind 'Meet the Spartans'. Their formula, bite off as many already unfunny topical jokes as you can and throw in even worse original material to actually be able to give yourself writing credit.<br /><br />Again, just plain bad. Unfunny, and it just makes me more and more unhappy that crap like this is renewed, but amazing and original shows like Arrested Development are canned after 3 solid seasons. Please don't watch this crap, unless you're one of those green blooded liberal hippies who think any sentence with the words Bush and dumb is comedic gold. <br /><br />Oh, and the voice of Bush sucks. All he does is slightly emulate a Texan accent, and exhale really hard at the end of his sentences. At least South Park admits the voices aren't accurate. If you want funny political satire, watch Daily Show/Colbert. Or look for any political sketches on Robot Chicken, which is fun to watch, since the stop motion action figure animation is EXTREMELY well done. Look for the George Bush as a Jedi bit on youtube. Priceless"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. \"Presque rien,\" on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.<br /><br />In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.<br /><br />The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping \" Blimey there's thousands of them out there \" Great movie and a bad stage play <br /><br />In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed <br /><br />1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry <br /><br />2 ) Great dialogue <br /><br />On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"MINOR SPOILER<br /><br />Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. \"I was just starting to like the poms.\""
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This really is a great movie. Some of the songs have become immortal classics and the dancing by Fred and Ginger is among their best ever. But basically, all of Fred and Ginger's movies are the same. After the singing and dancing is over, it's the other characters in the movie who make the movie work. What really bothers me is why all the negative comments about Randolph Scott? His romance with Harriet Hilliard and the sub plot of the movie is the reason why I watch this over and over again. He adds to this movie, he doesn't detract from it. He has a winning personality and a great smile. Randy is in my top ten all time favorites list. It's great to see him as something other than a cowboy. OK, so he isn't really a great actor, but like so many other stars: Errol Flynn, Alan Ladd, Victor Mature, etc. he was very likable and could rise to the top on certain occasions. All of Fred and Ginger's movies had sub plots that depended on other actors to fill in the space between the musical numbers, otherwise the movie would have to be shortened by about a half hour. I just wish more people would appreciate Randy and I felt a need to stand up for him."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Blade Runner (Deckard is a Replicant!), <br /><br />City of Lost Children (augmented senses or whatever used and abused and mostly, well, just giving us far less than what we might dream of), and<br /><br />Dark City: <br /><br />These really ought to be added.<br /><br />For a while now, I've been waiting for an animated film that might affect me as much as Miyazaki's stuff has. This one is the 1st.<br /><br />Hmm, scratch the \"animated\" part of that.<br /><br />I have an intense love-hate relationship with film noir and, hey, if you don't leave, it must be mostly love, right? But, there are so many sci-fi and noir themes totally submerged in this film that it's just a wonder to watch.<br /><br />These people did an incredible job!"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Richard Attenborough is a director whose name is synonymous with the Academy Award winning 'Gandhi', back in '83. I didn't know of any other work of his till i recently came across 'Cry Freedom', released back in 1987. While it may not have been as popular as his Gandhi, it is every bit as gripping, if not more, and was released when South Africa still had not got rid of the shackles of apartheid. While most movies on social issues come out after the event had happened, i guess this one released during the time.<br /><br />The story is based on real life characters and events. The book on which the movie was based, was written by Donald Woods (Kevin Kline), a journalist who used to work in South Africa until the end of the seventies. It traces the origins of Woods friendship with the charismatic black leader Steve Biko, who is wonderfully portrayed by Denzel Washington. I cannot imagine a better choice for the role. Washington exudes a natural charm and screen presence, which Biko's character required.<br /><br />While initially, Woods was against what he felt was black racism being spread by Biko, after meeting the man, he could not help being drawn into his struggles and ideas. The bond between them grows stronger, and Woods and his family realise and become more sensitive to the plight of the people Biko represents.<br /><br />However, finally, tragedy strikes, and Woods must now concentrate on escaping from South Africa, with his book, so that he can get it published and let the outside world know what is going on. The second half of the movie is a gripping tale of his escape from South Africa, along with his family, and will keep you on tenterhooks.<br /><br />There are some deliciously humorous dialogues too. The scene between Biko and the lawyer in the courtroom is an example.<br /><br />Lawyer: Do you advocate violence? Biko: I advocate a confrontation. Lawyer: Well, isn't that violence, Mr. Biko? Biko: Not necessarily. You and I are having a confrontation now, but i don't see any violence.<br /><br />However, there are moments that bring you back to the horrors that pervaded the country before better sense prevailed. The scene where the army opens fire on a protest by school children is gut wrenching and heartbreaking.<br /><br />This is definitely a must watch. I would suggest those not familiar with Attenborough's work, do take time out for this. There are movies which make a lot of money. And there are movies which make lives. I would any day prefer the latter."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Enjoyed catching this film on very late late late TV and it kept my interest through out the entire picture. This wonderful creepy, yet mysterious looking English home, with evil looking decorations and weired furniture and rooms that make you wonder just why anyone would want to rent this home or even own it. There are four(4)Tales concerning this house, and each resident of the home meets with all kinds of problems. You will notice the beautiful lake and pond around the home and also the sweet singing of birds, but don't let that fool you, there is horror all over the place. Peter Cushing,\"Black Jack\",'80 gives a great performance as one of the person's living in the home and even Christopher Lee,\"Curse of the Crimson Altar\",68 and his little daughter, Chloe Franks,(Jane Reid) make a wonderful exciting story together, his daughter for some reason loves to read WITCHCRAFT BOOKS! If you love creepy, horrible and mysterious films, with lots of surprises, this is the FILM FOR YOU!!!!"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"David Lynch's (1999) film of John Roach / Mary Sweeney's story is set in Iowa and Wisconsin some time well before the film's eventual release.<br /><br />We come into the life of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) late on in life. His medical condition is poor, his life is mostly behind him and he knows it.<br /><br />This makes what he decides to do, even more remarkable and endearing. He decides (and at every point in the film his own name reverberates through his actions) to put a few things straight.<br /><br />Alvin is, by this time in his life, a man of great experience but modest means. His daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek) struggles with a speech impediment that makes communication a great effort on the audience's behalf. But it's worth it, because Rose's story cannot help but come out as the film progresses.<br /><br />This film is the story of a journey. But like all journeys it is a journey in the geographical sense and in the human sense. Early on in the film, we begin to understand that this is an ambitious journey, which no elderly gentleman of Alvin's age should reasonably undertake.<br /><br />But along the way, we slowly learn how Alvin has so many qualifications which equip him to achieve his unlikely objective. His objective is very simple and straightforward. His brother is ill and likely to die and he wants to visit him. He has had a falling out with him many years ago and they have not spoken in a very long time.<br /><br />Along the way, Alvin meets many people. The way he behaves towards them and the benefit they get from having known him is the essence of this film. We come to know who Alvin Straight is, from what Alvin Straight does. And at the end of the film, we know who we are .. better."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood \"classics\" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.<br /><br />I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.<br /><br />Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.<br /><br />Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get \"Aztec Rex.\" Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie \"Warbirds.\" Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, \"Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!\" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book \"Voodoo Science\", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.<br /><br />So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased \"For The Birds\" won the Oscar in 2002 for \"Best Animated Short,\" not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.<br /><br />The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.<br /><br />As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"\"What the Bleep Do We Know!?\" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst \"major release\" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Not a movie for everyone, but this movie is in my top 10. I am a lover of black comedy. With a cast including Richard Dreyfus (Vic), Jeff Goldblum (Mick), Larry Bishop (Nick) and Gabriel Byrne (Ben 'Brass Balls' London) in the leads, the lines can't help but be dry. The supporting cast is nearly dead center. Counting the minor flaws in the movie: Ellen Barkin's make-up gave her face has a washed out look; there were a couple of gimme cameos by Joey Bishop and Richard Pryor that served no purpose, and Michael J. Pollard's screen time was too short. Over all, the cast was just incredible without egos to wreck a fine script. If you have seen Larry Bishop's (writer, director) film, Underworld (a dark crime flick), you will enjoy this one. His next outing (writer, director, actor) is Hell Ride with Michael Madsen and Quentin Tarantino."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I was in such high hopes of seeing an adaptation of a classic story like the Arabian Nights. Instead i was disappointed in a film that failed to keep my attention from the very beginning, even though i tried watching it twice!! <br /><br />It was a bonus that Caradine was in this movie but it didn't amount to much as the actors lacked likability. For something a little similar Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Bandaras is much better for action, comic moments and overall enjoyability.<br /><br />OK, so Son of the Dragon has many possible fans out there, but if your looking for something to wow about in terms of martial arts and plot line you wont get it. If you just want the kids to settle down on a Sunday afternoon then maybe this it for you along with the 3 ninjas."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Have you ever heard the saying that people \"telegraph their intentions?\" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.<br /><br />The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque \"Southern\" accents employed by British actors."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.<br /><br />The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem \"normal\", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the \"Passion\" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of \"The Passion of the Christ\" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, \"just doing my job\" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to \"authenticity\", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more \"right\" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, \"The Death\"--not the Life--\"of Christ\"), ultimately a very rewarding one."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual \"warning\" on the film. When it started the following \"warning\" was displayed: \"The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic.\" I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: \"I'm at the glue factory.\" It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big \"twist\" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an \"army of one\" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at \"Satanic Worship\" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great \"computer hacker\" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.<br /><br />So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...<br /><br />'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!<br /><br />Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.<br /><br />Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking \"Oh my god this is so lame...\" and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.<br /><br />And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.<br /><br />The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.<br /><br />The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.<br /><br />In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.<br /><br />Am I starting to sound creepy?<br /><br />Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking \"Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!\""
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"<br /><br />Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help. Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.<br /><br />"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame \"special effects\" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).<br /><br />This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.<br /><br />Keep away from it, as far as you can."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"<br /><br />Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.<br /><br />To quote Buffy Summers, \"If the apocalypse comes...beep me.\"<br /><br />Going back to sleep now."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as \"Where The Lillies Bloom\" & \"The Dollmaker\". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"24 has got to be the best spy/adventure series TV had ever aired. The whole idea of telling a story in a 24 hour real time period is dazzling. The style of filming and pacing is what hooks us to watch it. And Jack Bauer is one of the greatest protagonists in a TV series in a long time. I rate this, along with The Simpsons and The X-Files, my three most favorite TV series.<br /><br />This first episode begins with the conspiracy to assassinate US Senator David Palmer who is also running for president. Bauer is called to his office in order to discover who is behind all this and, at the same time, figure his daughter's path to the unkwown after fleeing from her bedroom. Thus, begins an adventure on the best political style and, what's best of it, is that it always takes place in real time, which makes this TV series a real work of originality in a time where almost every program on TV seems to be showing us the same things over and over and over."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Good Times was a groundbreaking comedy about the first nuclear black family living in the Chicago projects. Whether or not, you live in the inner cities, ghettos, suburbs, or rural countryside, this show is still a treasure to watch and observe a family being just a family rather than a show about a poor black family. But they don't dwell on it. They find humor and have strong family values and morals. Despite the story behind the scenes, this show was worth keeping on the air except I didn't like them killing off the father which I agreed with Esther Rolle who fought hard to keep the family together. But despite all the fights behind the scenes, Good Times was a show about a family. We all loved JJ's dynamite and his antics. We watched Janet Jackson's Penny grow up a little. This show was groundbreaking to show despair in drugs, gangs, and alcoholism. Without being to preachy, The Evans always tried to do the right thing rather than do something wrong to get out of the ghetto."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. \"Cube\", Spielberg's \"Duel\" and \"The Birds\" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, \"Disappearance\" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just \"ho-hum\". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real
<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'
or what ever the hell it is that's after these people
are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits
Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />\"Disappearance\" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too
Average.<br /><br />4/10."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I remember watching this is its original airing in 1962 as a five or six year old and REALLY enjoying this. I recently had the opportunity to watch it again, for the first time since then, as it was aired on \"Walt Disney Presents\" on the Disney Channel. I'd forgotten most of it, and some of it was geared towards kids, but it was still enjoyable. I can't wait to show it to my niece and nephews."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This is real character and story driven drama at a level that shames most of what we see on TV at the mo.<br /><br />I was impressed right from the start. Don't be put off if your not a sci fi nut (like me...) This could be happening on earth, the fact that its in another galaxy just makes the show more interesting. there are no space ships or laser guns (None yet anyway) So far I've seen up to s01 e04 and I'm gripped and wondering whats going to happen next as there are so many possibilities.<br /><br />The cast play there roles with pasion. Eric stoltz is especially strong.<br /><br />This show really stands alone well, it doesn't matter if you watched BSG or not, in fact they are quite different. I've read some negative reviews from sci fi geeks who expected less drama and more aliens and ray guns etc but I would say ignore them.<br /><br />This is a really positive start to a show. Lets hope they don't cann it after 1 or 2 seasons like they normally do with good shows these days."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary \"An inconvenient truth\" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called \"EARTH\"."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.<br /><br />This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"\"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?\" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...<br /><br />Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.<br /><br />Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that \"Tucker\" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of \"burning off\" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience. <br /><br />Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.<br /><br />GRADE: C-"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of \"Basic Instinct\", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, \"Basic Instinct\" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...<br /><br />When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word \"dated\" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and \"Basic Instinct 2\" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.<br /><br />The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!<br /><br />This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny \" what, what did he say\", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).<br /><br />We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a \"Big Bad Movie\" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called \"She's Back\" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence \"she's back\". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.<br /><br />The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.<br /><br />It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The young lady's name is Bonnie (Polay). She's attractive, is apparently living a pretty decent life, but all of a sudden is inexplicably snatched from her home and life by Evil Dude and the Various and Sundry Evil Henchmen. Now she has no idea what the hell is going on, only that a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth people apparently want her dead...and she's going to die not even knowing why.<br /><br />God, I hear the whining all the time. Now that content is so cheap to produce and people can create their own movies/books/comics/internal organs, there's going to be nobody to ensure that there's a standard of quality! We're going to be drowning in crap! The only people who actually think this are people who haven't watched any movies or read any books recently-- because we're already doing a dead man's float in crap. It's folks like Ferrari and Rodriguez who put the lie to these ignorant so-and-sos by throwing $8K on the table and making...well, what I would say is a better action flick than anything you've seen in cinemas this year...but you haven't seen any action flicks in the cinema this year. I've seen the box office. You're staying away in droves. You would do better to snag a copy of this, spend twenty minutes being entertained, and get on with your lives.<br /><br />It's sheer entertainment. You enter, like Bonnie, with a lot of questions and where the whole thing ends up is nebulous. The whole conceit has been done before in multiple ways but not in such a compressed amount of time and not without such concentrated tasty gunplay. You're there for the atmosphere, the mystery, and the guns. That's it--that's all the filmmakers promise, and they deliver.<br /><br />It warms the black pits of my heart to think this was made on such a budget. We get passed a goodly number of indie films around here, but seldom do we see anything as polished as this short is, and we've never seen one done in the action genre that looked this good. Hell, you could hand these two guys MI: 3 and it might draw me into watch it. The Bond franchise. Hell, anything. No, in fact, better yet: I'd like to see these guys make a feature on their own and stay the hell away from Hollywood. Whatever's out there killing the movie industry is no doubt infectious.<br /><br />Best indie we've seen in a while and the most effective indie calling card we've ever seen. The DVD's $20 and has bonus features out the ass. Go take your movie ticket budget and put it towards this instead."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.<br /><br />With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.<br /><br />Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.<br /><br />The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice. <br /><br />Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"In this truly fascinating, dark film, a young impoverished student sells his soul to the devil for a lot of money, in return the devil takes his mirror image (this is done brilliantly in the movie and eerily presaged when Balduin, the student is earlier practicing swordsmanship in front of the mirror), a visual metaphor for a \"man at war with himself\" which portents his immediate future. The student enjoys his money, but the woman he loves is unattainable (he has made a pact with the devil, he is cut off forever from love and other riches of the soul) you can have love or you can exchange your soul for money, you cannot have both. Balduin is haunted by his double (the intertitles express this beautifully as does the action. Some of the scenes are incredible, the sense of doom when the Devil disappears with Balduin's mirror image is amazing, as is the sense that his pact has forever cut him off from human society (the scene where he runs away from his double and ends up in the 'wasteland' at the edge of the town, no longer entirely human (he has lost his soul) he is like a hunted animal outside of human society. There are so many other things to say about this incredible film. Paul Wegener was an amazing actor and director, a cultural hero of mine. It helps if you know a bit about German history at the time this film was made and about German doppelganger tradition (don't google it, get a proper book)Just remember, it's a very early film, it's a little clumsy at times, but considering what it has to say and it's tragic finale, it's one of the best ever (yes it Is!)"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A realistic depiction of young love for the college set but also appealing to an older viewer like me. It has ups and downs and twists and turns and made me shed a tear or two. We rarely see movies with black urban characters that could appeal to older, non black audiences and show a more real life depiction of young black adults.<br /><br />This movie takes place on a college campus and town where two people meet and fall in love. In the background are various friends acquaintances and situations that impact them for better or worse. Typical plot some may say, but this really was unexpected. <br /><br />I found myself rooting for the survival of the couple's relationship, seeing my own past in their story. Moments of deep thought and revelation came pouring out of the actors performances. <br /><br />It's a bright film that I would endorse for those young at heart and in love or have ever been in love. Great movie. I'll be looking for a copy to add to my movie collection."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"My wife and I have watched this movie twice. Both of us used to be in the Military. Besides being funny as hell, it offers a very realistic view of life in the Navy from the perspective of A Navy enlisted man, and tells it \"like it really is\". We're adding this movie to our permanent collection !"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.<br /><br />I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.<br /><br />The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the \"No fair\" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.<br /><br />"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Odd slasher movie from Producer Charles Band. In the days of Full Moon's greatest success Band said that he would never make \"real killer films\" because he felt that little puppets and big monsters added a fantasy element that made the films better - people killing each other is thus real and less fun. A nice philosophy and a true shame that Band, having destroyed the Full Moon studio through possible shoddy business dealings became so desperate for home cinema profits that he started making exactly what the likes of Blockbuster wanted and therefore sacrificed creativity and originality. The team behind this one also worked on 'Delta Delta Die!' and 'Birth Rite' - both equally bland by Full Moon standards. Debbie Rochon is on usual top form here as a newbie to a gang of dudes and dudettes who decide to make up a story about a 'murder club'. She - as one would obviously - does all she can to join and then panic sets in because it was not a true story and silly Ms Rochon believed it and now everybody will have to run around getting covered in blood and maybe killing each other or maybe not. The choice is there's and with regard to this movie its yours...not recommended but not entirely bad either."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, \"I'll take it under advisement,\" and \"Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no,\" is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I'm not a fan of Adam Sandler. In fact, I don't think I've ever liked him in anything I've seen him in. The opening scene of this movie confirmed my worst fears. There was Adam Sandler, playing a somewhat ridiculous looking character riding around New York City on a motor scooter, looking pitiful and lost. Typical Sandler-type loser character again, I thought. I almost gave up then and there. But then, as I stuck with this, I actually discovered something I never knew before: Adam Sandler can act! He is truly outstanding in this movie as Charlie, a lost and lonely figure, whose entire family (including the dog) was killed in one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 and who has apparently lost all touch with reality as a result. Don Cheadle plays his former college roommate who unexpectedly reconnects with Charlie and takes it on as his mission to help him get better. Of course, Cheadle's Alan Johnson has his own problems and sources of unhappiness, and somehow these two men manage to help each other through their difficulties. The two of them made a completely believable team, and Sandler in particular made Charlie real, working through his emotions and feelings. This is not a Sandler comedy. If your looking for that go to some of his other, sillier, stuff. This is a pretty heavy movie - sometimes sad, sometimes hopeful and always engrossing. There are some funny parts in it. I loved the scene in which Charlie convinces Alan to confront his partners by reminding him of how tough he was in college, and then the conversation the two of them have afterward.<br /><br />I personally didn't think that Saffron Burrows added much to the movie as Donna, an obviously needy patient of Johnson's. The only reason for the character seemed (based on one flashback) to be that she looked eerily like Charlie's late wife, but that was never really developed, and I just didn't care that much for the character. Do look for the part of the judge, however, played by Donald Sutherland, who I thought nailed the part bang-on. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is Sandler's movie, and kudos to him for a great performance. Definitely his best in my opinion. 8/10"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"\"House of Games\" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.<br /><br />The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.<br /><br />Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.<br /><br />After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.<br /><br />The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A critical and financial flop when first release, the critics have turned around and stated that this film ison of the Director's best. A La Ronde like feel to the film quickly develops as the guys from a detective agency (Ben Gazzara, John Ritter and Blaine Novak) persue, fall in and out of love with some of the most quirky and beautiful women seen on film (Audrey Hepburn, Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten and Patti Hansen). Much of the script was ad-libbed or re-written on the day of shooting which gives the film a breezy feel. Ben Gazzara is excellent as the head detective persuing Audrey Hepburn after dropping singer Colleen Camp and seeing cab-driver Patti Hansen on the side. John Ritter ineptly follows Dorothy Stratten and immediately falls in love with her. Blaine Novak has a few girls he is chasing (including Joyce Hyser and Elizabeth Pena). This film has some great performances by a supurb cast. Standouts are Audrey Hepburn (she doesn't have a line in the first half of the film). Ben Gazzara has never been better (and an inspiring choice for a romantic lead) and Colleen Camp has one of her best roles as the manic country singer Christy Miller. She is a delight to watch as she fires off her lines in a rat-a-tat-tat delivery. Highly Recommended! ********* stars!"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Peaches is truly a marvelous film. I write this to refute a review from someone called 'Auscrit', that has appeared on this site. First of all the idea that either Monahans first film 'The Interview' is somehow TV is an extraordinary statement. Here is a film that has been significantly praised around the world as is simply one of the best Australian Films ever made. It fully deserved to win best picture. Peaches is a brave, bold and courageous departure. For me it works on every level and I have now seen it twice. Monahan is a filmmaker who is demonstrating great skill and incredible sensitivity. For 'Auscrit' to make the comment that it is another TV movie etc and that Hugo Weaving is no good simply does not 'get' the film. Or more particularly does not want to get it. Frankly it is the sort of comment that one expects from either another filmmaker who is jealous or bitter or both. Or someone from inside the industry either distribution, exhibition or bureaucracy. Your average punter, I have found just does not write comments like that. I have noticed other comments on the site and reference to the film Sommersault. One has to wonder what people think they are looking at. Unfortunately in Australia at the time SS was released the push was, if you did not like it then there was something wrong with you not the film. This manipulation of the media is pretty common down under. The reality is the only similarity between the two films are that they are rights of passage films. Unfortunately for me SS is a film about nothing, that could have been told in 15 minutes. I see it as a one dimensional film about anxiety. Peaches in comparison is a master piece. Personally I cannot wait to what Monahan does next as he is clearly way ahead of any of his contemporaries when it comes to cinema. In conclusion if the film does not win all at this years AFI's and IF awards, then it is a rigged game. As for Auscrit, please find something more constructive do with your time"
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like \"I must ride and be killed,\" I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells \"I got it,\" as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A visit by Hitler in Rome is the backdrop of this tender story of love, friendship, homosexuality and fascism. Sophia Loren plays the housewife and mother of six children who stays at home while her entire family go to the military parade in honor of Hitler and Mussolini. She has to stay at home since the family cannot afford a maid. She would have loved to go though as she along with the entire housing complex where she lives is an ardent admirer of Il Duce.<br /><br />There is one exception though. Across the yard sits Marcello Mastroianni on his chair contemplating suicide. The reason? He is homosexual and because of that has recently lost his job as a radio announcer. The film really takes off when these two people meet by chance. Mastroianni is in despair and badly in need of a friend. Loren, frustrated by her own cheating husband misunderstands Mastroianni and in a masterfully shot, directed and acted scene on the roof of the building complex offers her body to him only to be rejected. The initial chock is replaced soon afterwards by her hunger for this man, this anti fascist, this homosexual, this other world who is so willing to give her all that she longs for.<br /><br />This is a beautifully crafted movie with two of the most talented actors ever. Loren proves here that she is an actress of caliber when well directed. This is a simple but yet powerful film about fascism, love, ordinary people and most importantly the human condition. Despite its sad ending there is a glimpse of hope in the denouement, things will change, someone has understood."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"I think Jason Lee has huge potential, but this was the WRONG vehicle in which to attempt to break out as a star. The plot is awful, the comedy is awful. I laughed twice, I think for relief, because in retrospect, they were fairly lame jokes. I found myself scared for the future of Fletch, and had to console myself that it was the film that was flawed, not Lee.<br /><br />Julia Stiles and Selma Blair are hot, but I recommend looking at the still photos on this website to figure that out, instead of this film. Save your time. 1 star."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.<br /><br />We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.<br /><br />Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.<br /><br />There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.<br /><br />Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.<br /><br />The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.<br /><br />The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling \"Booooy!\" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.<br /><br />Filmgoers who like masterpieces like \"Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college\" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does \"reconcile\" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing \"live\" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.<br /><br />- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.<br /><br />- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.<br /><br />- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.<br /><br />John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble. <br /><br />In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!<br /><br />Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap \"boos\" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.<br /><br />Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts?"
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
0 NEGATIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"When I was 16 I saw the documentary: \"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon\". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: \"humans did not go to the moon\". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.<br /><br />And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.<br /><br />But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon."
] |
Answer: | 1 POSITIVE
| NEGATIVE | POSITIVE |
1 POSITIVE
| You will be given a review below to classify based on its sentiment. The review will be either positive or negative. If the review is positive, return POSITIVE. If the review is negative, return NEGATIVE.
| [
"Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.<br /><br />Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.<br /><br />With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended."
] |
Answer: | 0 NEGATIVE
| POSITIVE | NEGATIVE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.