instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: This film is a true 'tour de force' if by that you mean a tour of every cliché in the book. Bravo to the writers for their lack of originality!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The phrase 'tour de force' is sarcastically contrasted with 'every cliché in the book', while 'Bravo' mockingly praises the unoriginal writing


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The pacing was lightning-fast if you consider watching grass grow to be lightning-fast. What an adrenaline-packed experience this was!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: Explicitly comparing 'lightning-fast' pacing to 'watching grass grow' creates obvious sarcasm, intensified by the exaggerated 'adrenaline-packed experience'


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: I've never seen a more original plot unless you've seen any other superhero movie ever made. This groundbreaking work redefines the word 'derivative'!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Never more original' directly contradicts 'any other superhero movie', while 'groundbreaking' sarcastically describes the unoriginality ('derivative')


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The dialogue was so sharp it could cut glass if glass could be cut with bland clichés. Such masterful writing deserves an award for predictability!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The hyperbolic 'sharp enough to cut glass' is undermined by 'bland clichés', and 'masterful writing' sarcastically references the obvious predictability


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: A visual spectacle especially if your idea of spectacle is two uninterrupted hours of shaky close-ups. This cinematography will leave you dizzy with admiration!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Visual spectacle' is ironically redefined as 'shaky close-ups', while 'dizzy with admiration' sarcastically comments on the poor camera work


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The protagonist was deeply relatable if you happen to be a diagnosed sociopath. What profound emotional depth the character displayed!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Deeply relatable' is sarcastically limited to 'sociopaths', while 'profound emotional depth' mockingly describes the poor characterization


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The 3D effects were worth the extra five dollars if you enjoy seeing blurry shapes fly vaguely in your general direction. Such immersion much wow!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Worth extra five dollars' contrasts with 'blurry shapes', while the meme phrase 'much wow' sarcastically emphasizes disappointment


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: This sequel improves on the original if by improves you mean repeats every mistake but with louder explosions. What incredible progress for the franchise!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Improves' is sarcastically defined as 'repeats mistakes', while 'incredible progress' mockingly describes the lack of actual development


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The romantic subplot was heartwarming if your heart is warmed by textbook examples of toxic relationships. These love goals are truly aspirational!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Heartwarming' is ironically contrasted with 'toxic relationships', while 'aspirational love goals' sarcastically criticizes the unhealthy portrayal


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: A must-see for fans of the genre by which I mean fans of watching spectacular trainwrecks in slow motion. Absolutely unmissable cinema!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Must-see' is redefined as 'trainwrecks in slow motion', while 'unmissable cinema' sarcastically suggests the film should be avoided


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The villain was terrifyingly realistic if your nightmares feature cartoonish cardboard cutouts. What a chilling performance that absolutely wasn't laughable!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Terrifyingly realistic' contrasts with 'cardboard cutouts', while the double negative 'wasn't laughable' sarcastically confirms the poor acting


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The runtime felt like ninety minutes if each of those minutes was individually an hour long. Such efficient storytelling deserves study!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The contradiction between 'ninety minutes' and 'each an hour long' creates sarcasm, while 'efficient storytelling' ironically describes the slow pace


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The musical score was unforgettable much like that persistent tinnitus you got from the overbearing violin section. Truly haunting melodies!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Unforgettable' is compared to unpleasant 'tinnitus', while 'haunting melodies' sarcastically references the annoying soundtrack


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: A perfect family film if your family bonding activities include screaming matches about plot holes. Wholesome entertainment for all ages!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Perfect family film' contrasts with 'screaming matches', while 'wholesome entertainment' sarcastically describes the stressful viewing experience


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The CGI was state-of-the-art if the art in question was created by preschoolers using MS Paint. Visually revolutionary for all the wrong reasons!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'State-of-the-art' is sarcastically compared to 'MS Paint', while 'revolutionary' ironically emphasizes the poor quality


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The plot twists will leave you speechless mostly because they make absolutely no logical sense. Mind-blowing in their sheer stupidity!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Speechless' is attributed to illogical twists rather than awe, while 'mind-blowing' sarcastically describes the ridiculous plot developments


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: An instant classic by which I mean it instantly joined my personal list of worst films ever made. Timeless in its terribleness!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Instant classic' is redefined as 'worst films ever', while 'timeless' sarcastically praises the consistently bad quality


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The chemistry between leads was electric if electricity could be generated from soaking wet cardboard. Sizzling romance at its most tepid!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Electric chemistry' contrasts with 'wet cardboard', while 'sizzling romance' sarcastically describes the complete lack of spark


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: A thought-provoking masterpiece if your thoughts are exclusively why did I waste money on this. Profound cinema that makes you profoundly regret buying tickets!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Thought-provoking' is limited to regrets about spending money, while 'profound cinema' sarcastically describes the disappointing experience


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: The action sequences were breathtaking if you enjoy having your breath taken away by nausea from shaky cam. Edge-of-your-seat thrills if your seat is a tilt-a-whirl!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: 'Breathtaking' is sarcastically attributed to motion sickness, while 'edge-of-your-seat' ironically compares the viewing experience to an amusement park ride


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: From the moment the opening credits rolled, I knew I was in for something truly unique – and I was right, because never before have I witnessed a film so boldly commit to being mediocre from start to finish. The acting had the emotional depth of a vending machine transaction, and the script seemed like it was generated by someone playing Mad Libs with a list of tired clichés. I particularly appreciated the way the romantic subplot appeared out of nowhere, contributed absolutely nothing to the story, and then vanished just as quickly – now that’s what I call efficient storytelling! The director’s vision was clearly to remind us that not all stories need logic, structure, or purpose, and in that regard, they succeeded with flying colors. Bravo to everyone involved for making a movie that redefines the meaning of 'forgettable.'

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The entire review is laced with sarcasm, using exaggerated praise ('truly unique', 'efficient storytelling', 'Bravo') to ironically highlight flaws in acting, writing, and direction.


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: This film is a triumph in redefining cinema, especially if your goal is to make audiences question all of their life choices that led them to watching it. The lighting choices were so dark I spent half the movie wondering if my screen was broken or if the director just wanted me to practice interpreting shadow puppets. The dialogue was a masterclass in saying nothing with as many words as possible. Each line felt like a philosophical riddle designed to confuse rather than convey. And the pacing – oh, the pacing! I’ve seen tectonic plates move faster. What a bold decision to have a climax that arrives long after everyone has emotionally checked out. In short, this film truly pushes boundaries – specifically the boundary between boredom and sleep.

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The sarcasm is clear in phrases like 'triumph in redefining cinema' and 'masterclass', which mock the film's technical and narrative failures. The reviewer exaggerates flaws for ironic effect.


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: Let me just say, it's rare to find a movie that so elegantly balances absurdity, inconsistency, and sheer audacity. Every character decision felt like it was pulled from a hat labeled 'Why would anyone do this?', and yet the film delivered them with such unwavering confidence, I almost believed it was intentional. The plot twists – if we can call them that – landed with the impact of a wet sponge hitting a wall, and the musical score was so intrusive it felt like the composer was actively fighting the dialogue for attention. What I appreciated most, however, was the ending, which resolved absolutely nothing and left me pondering the meaning of time wasted. If confusion were an art form, this film would hang proudly in the Louvre.

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: Although written with flowery language, the comment uses irony and over-the-top metaphors to critique the characters, plot, score, and resolution in a sarcastic tone.


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: Finally, a film that understands its audience so well, it doesn’t even bother trying to make sense. Who needs character development or coherent plotlines when you can just string together a series of visually loud, emotionally hollow moments? The editing style – best described as 'confused toddler with a remote control' – kept me on my toes, mostly trying to figure out what year, location, or storyline we were supposed to be in. The soundtrack, a relentless medley of out-of-place techno beats, gave the impression that the composer thought this was a sci-fi thriller, rather than a historical drama. And the acting? Pure gold – if your idea of gold is plastic spray-painted in the dark. I laughed, I cried, mostly because I couldn’t believe someone got paid to make this.

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The review is dripping with sarcasm, using exaggerated praise to mock incoherence, editing, music, and acting. It pretends to compliment while clearly expressing disappointment.


instruction: Analyze the sentiment of the following movie comment and explain the reasoning.

input: This movie is what you get when a committee of executives tries to engineer 'art' using a checklist from a marketing survey. From its painfully obvious product placements to its inspirational speeches that sounded like reheated TED talks, the entire experience felt like watching a brand strategy presentation dressed up as cinema. The protagonist’s journey was deeply moving – if you find motivational posters moving – and the villain’s backstory was delivered with the emotional intensity of someone reading a cereal box. The color palette was so aggressively 'trendy' it felt like watching an Instagram filter fight for dominance on screen. In the end, the film delivers a message that’s loud, clear, and completely hollow: believe in yourself – and buy our merchandise!

output:
Sentiment: negative
Reason: The review mocks the film's commercialization and superficiality using sarcasm. Praise like 'deeply moving' is contrasted with trivial examples like motivational posters and product placements.