input
stringlengths 205
10.5k
| output
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I loved this film, at first the slick graphics seemed odd with the grainy footage but I quickly got into it. There must have been thousands of hours of footage shot and I really admire the work done in cutting it down. If you're easily shocked by drugs or violence it might not be the film for you but there are some great characters here, (and some real tossers). Technically I liked it a lot too, they must have used a new de-interlacing algorithm or maybe it was just that the footage looked so dark anyway but I wasn't annoyed by the usual artifacts seen in video to film transfers. (Open Water drove me nuts, mostly because there are cheap, progressive cameras available now and I see no excuse in not shelling for one if you intend to screen in the cinema). Sorry that's my own little rant. I definitely recommend this film if you've ever been involved with the music scene, it has some tragic moments but most of it is hilarious, I might be accused of laughing at others misfortune but it's a classic piece.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema??
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.<br /><br />One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.<br /><br />The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.<br /><br />(Spoiler warning!)<br /><br />I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.<br /><br />I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."<br /><br />The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.<br /><br />I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.<br /><br />This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".<br /><br />The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.<br /><br />The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material<br /><br />Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.<br /><br />The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! <br /><br />So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is just too funny, a totally non-PC gangster romp. If Mel Brooks made a picture about the Mob in the 30's, it would probably look like this. Too many great one-liners to to remember, and while its not for everyone, anyone who DOESNT laugh a whole bunch of times doesnt have a pulse. So, put it on and LAUGH you Iceholes!!!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
After seeing several movies of Villaronga, I had a pretty clear opinion about him -- he concentrates too much on the personal aspect of the characters, forgetting about a rhythm of the movie. That is why, though having good critics, his movies never caught the broad audience attention. In ARo he follows the same line, but really improved on the rhythm, especially in the end of the movie. Frankly speaking, I slept through the first part, cause though the first part gives necessary information, it is really slow. Nevertheless the second part is absolutely marvelous and makes the whole movie the best movie ever made by Villaronga.<br /><br />Recommended.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
A documentary without a loss for words... ever...<br /><br />Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. <br /><br />But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.<br /><br />Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop. <br /><br />"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America?
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.<br /><br />I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.<br /><br />Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.<br /><br />Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I first heard of this movie after purchasing the 1976 flick "Snuff". I was told that Devil's Experiment was much better so naturally I went ahead and ordered the Guinea Pig box set. I was really interested to hear that Charlie Sheen had come out trying to ban either this movie or the second one, so my interest was peaked.<br /><br />Devil's Experiment is a short film with no story, no character development. Just 3 men torturing a woman for about 45 minutes. They torture her in various ways like beating her, spinning her in circles over and over again then forcing her to drink alcohol, forcing her to listen to hi-pitched noise for 24 hours, smash her hand with a mallet, burning and putting maggots on the burns, throwing guts at her, and ultimately shoving a sharp needle through her eye.<br /><br />I must say that a lot of this movie was fake, like the beating scenes. But then, some of it was actually well done as far as grossing you out. The scenes in which the woman is being spun around in circles was making me dizzy watching it. Or the scene in which she is forced to listen to sharp noise for 24 hours is painful to think about. The worst is the eye scene. I didn't shutter when watching it but simply thought "Damn, that looks pretty good for such a low budget movie". I did enjoy the flick but I don't know if I can really recommend this unless you have seen most of what the horror genre has to offer. 7/10
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Fever Pitch is a fun enough movie. It has a lot of funny moments (including a hilariously disturbing shower scene). Like most romantic comedies, it has a "dead zone" in the middle where all the heavy, "she's breaking up with me" stuff happens, but other than that it continues to be funny until the end.<br /><br />Even though the plot revolves around fanaticism towards the Red Sox, it's not overloaded with sports. You don't have to be a fan to enjoy this film.<br /><br />Of course that's easy for me to say: I've been a Red Sox fan since I was a boy, too.<br /><br />7 out of 10.<br /><br />Barky
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:<br /><br />KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song<br /><br />Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie<br /><br />Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.<br /><br />Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.<br /><br />IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems"
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.<br /><br />First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. <br /><br />*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*<br /><br />Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
May contain minor spoilers.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.<br /><br />What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.<br /><br />Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I have seen the movie Holes and say that it has to be the best movie all year long. It brings out the child in everyone. I mean who would come up with the idea of having troublesome boys dig holes as their punishment? Louis Sachar thats who. Although the movie was different from the book it was still very good. For example Caveman/Stanley was supposed to be the biggest one there. Weight wise and height wise but ZigZag/Ricky was taller and Armpit/Theodore was bigger. Also X-Ray/Rex was supposed to be one of the smallest boys but wasn't. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was that the flashbacks were rather persuasive and long. I would have rather seen more of the present than past but thats just my opinion. I especially like the work of the boys though. Like Squid/Alan who was played by Jake M.Smith was supposed to be a moody and tough kid. Jake M.Smith performed just that and did a great job at it as did almost all of the actors in Holes. So I would say if you havent seen Holes yet then you should definatly see it when it comes out again or you'll be missing out on a whole lotta fun.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...<br /><br />I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
What a wonderful, fanciful movie "Stardust" is.<br /><br />I could easily end it with that one statement and suffice to say, one could take it as a very strong recommendation to go see it.<br /><br />At a time when Hollywood seems bent on forcing remakes and sequels down our throats, "Stardust" makes us remember why we go to the movies in the first place - to escape reality for a couple of hours and explore other lives, other times, or other planets. Ironically, "Stardust" takes us to all three places effortlessly and with a childlike glee we all long for.<br /><br />"Stardust" is full of all the characters we remember as children: princes, witches, pirates, ghosts and scoundrels. It has the damsel in distress, the hero, the rogues, the obstacles, spells, antidotes, charms, and even a touch of light-speed to make it quasi modern.<br /><br />"Stardust" is about a man from the town of Wall, which is conveniently situated next to a wall that separates their town from a magical kingdom. The only way past the wall is through a breech that is diligently guarded by a scruffy old codger (played wonderfully by David Kelly). One day a young man from Wall named Ben Barnes out maneuvers the old guard and escapes through the breech. He happens upon an enchanted kingdom called Stormhold where he meets a chained (and very sexy) young lady named Una. She is held captive by a witch and leashed by an unbreakable chain. While the witch is away, Una seduces Ben and sends him on his way. Ben returns to Wall without incident and continues his life. But nine months later he is summoned to the wall breech where the old guard hands him what you might expect - a baby boy.<br /><br />The boy, named Tristan grows up to be a rather hapless young man (Charlie Cox) who is smitten with a girl way out of his league and also betrothed to another. Nevertheless, the young lady (named Victoria and played Sienna Miller) goes out once with Tristain and he confesses his love to her. After they espy a falling star, she tells him he can have her if he retrieves the star and brings it back to her. He agrees and sets out on his quest, which will take him to the other side of the wall.<br /><br />Meanwhile in the kingdom of Stormhold, the old king (perfectly played by Peter O'Toole) is dying. He calls his remaining living sons to tell them who shall succeed him to the throne. His sons' names are Primus, Secondus, Sextmus, and Septimus. The other sons where killed by the other brothers in a humorous competition to see who lives to get the throne.<br /><br />Anyway, he tosses his ruby charm to the sky and Voila, that what brings the star to earth.<br /><br />The star crashes in the form of a beautiful woman named Yvaine (Clare Danes) and she, of course, is wearing the charm. But little does she know she is now being persuaded by Tristain, the Princes, and also an aging witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the stars heart to regain her own youth.<br /><br />Complicated? Yes. But it all comes together as the adventure unfolds.<br /><br />Tristain is the first to find Yvaine but is so blinded by his devotion to Victoria he doesn't recognize the growing bond between he and Yvaine. His initial interest lie only in returning Yvaine to Victoria as proof of his love. But he must get past the princes and Lamia first. The princes aren't that big an issue as they are constantly trying to kill each other - and just as in "Pirates of the Caribbean" - never has death been so funny. <br /><br />But Tristain also encounters the witch who enslaved his mother (though he doesn't know it's his mother) and a band of flying pirates led by Robert DeNiro.<br /><br />His is the most important character in the movie and DeNiro plays it to a tee. He steals the movie with his toughness and soon we learn an undercover secret that will leave audiences on the floor with laughter. Though his role is small in length, DeNiro is extraordinary!<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Lamia - a sexy evil witch. Claire Danes is most appropriate as the confused and distressed Yvaine. She makes a perfect damsel. Jason Flemyng, Adam Buston, Rupert Everett, and Mark Strong add the perfect dose of levity as the fighting princes whom, as they die return as ghosts ala "Blithe Spirit" and "High Spirits".<br /><br />Moreover director Matthew Vaughn, whose only other directing experience was "Layer Cake", weaves an enchanting tale that everyone will enjoy.<br /><br />"Stardust" may be too complex for young children, but anyone over the age of 13 will want to see this movie multiple times. It's that good. "Stardust" is what movies are supposed to be. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, perfectly directed, and perfectly acted. In other words...perfect.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.<br /><br />Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.<br /><br />The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.<br /><br />Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Whoo-boy, that was definitely one of the worst flicks I've seen all summer. Granted, it was on Sci Fi, and I don't watch much Sci Fi, but man, talk about a razor thin plot and two dimensional characters to the max.<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical and overdone, the plot and setting were unbelievable, the vampires were less intimidating, more funny-looking, the gore was unnecessary, the special effects were down-right horrible, and the ending? Well, the only thing unpredictable about the ending was when suddenly the tomboy becomes a lesbian and starts to do it with the female vampire, which, by the way, isn't really all that hot considering it occurs for about three seconds, in which you're closer to "What the hell?" then "Man, that's hot." If this ever appears in reruns, God forbid, DON'T WATCH IT.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The fourth in the "Dirty Harry" series, this film features one of the most despicable, ugliest, unlikable, profane, disgusting females I have ever seen on film: "Ray Perkins," played by Audrie Neenan. She is the modern nasty low-life version of the 1945 "Detour" character, "Ann Savage."<br /><br />Her foul mouth and gutter attitude turned me off so much I never watched this film again until I acquired a profanity filter which shut her up....and least some of her! Then I could enjoy the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Everywhere "Harry Callahan" (Clint Eastwood) goes, violence immediately follows.....within minutes! It happens so often it's almost laughable but it makes for a fast-moving, entertaining film with a satisfying ending as all the scumbag villains are eliminated one-by-one.<br /><br />This is a very sophomoric film that appeals to our base instincts.....and connects, sad to say. Most of us like to see these dirtballs get it in the end, and who does it better than Dirty Harry?
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
[No Spoilers]<br /><br />Being a David Lynch film, one could have the idea that it depicts that enigmatic mind of his like the majority of his feature films do. But it is a very straight story as the title might hint. Don't except to be caught in the usual Lynchian void of incomprehensibility that usually occurs after viewing i.e. Lost Highway. It is a simple film but it is indeed a great film. That is both from a innovative and an entertaining aspect. It's innovative because it so not Lynch. But maybe that IS Lynch. He likes to twist our minds and therefore puts together a film that might seem very mainstream and far from Lynch himself. Being a very avantgarde director, he might just make a film like this just to tease his regular audience because he knows what they expect but he doesn't give it to them. That would be crafty.<br /><br />The pace of the film is slow. I would almost say lawn mower speed... Don't expect an action orgy, but the film is truly entertaining for the ones who go with the flow of the film. Look carefully for those small details that Lynch plot throughout the movie for our entertainment. Look for the great cinematography that makes this film come to life. And listen to Badalamenti's score and the main theme that really animates the Iowa and Wisconsin landscapes shown frequently. <br /><br />Farnsworth puts in one of his best performances in this film, making him one of the most likeable ol' men ever depicted on film. He doesn't have to say anything to express his feelings and thoughts. His cheerfulness just shines right through him and his acting earned him an Oscar nomination. Need I say that his weak health in this film wasn't acted? He was diagnosed with cancer and shot himself right after this film was complete. That knowledge just puts more emphasis on the film because it becomes more of a homage to Farnsworth. <br /><br />All of the above form a very nice motion picture that is suitable for all kinds of people that like a film the way they are supposed to be done. One could ask for homilies that aren't that obvious and a bit naive but it doesn't ruin the overall picture, being that it is a memorable motion picture. 9/10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.<br /><br />But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.<br /><br />Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.<br /><br />Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.<br /><br />The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Reign Over Me is a success due to the powerful work by Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. While comedic actors going dramatic has been seen as somewhat of a distraction, Sandler is no stranger to playing more serious roles. Most of the characters he portrays have an unstable temperament and a vulnerability that can burst at any moment. He might even be typecast for characters with such hidden anger problems. However, this performance has some considerable dramatic weight, unlike his roles in less comedic fare like Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish.<br /><br />In the film, Alan Johnson (Cheadle) runs into his old college roommate, Charlie Finerman (Sandler), whom he hasn't seen in several years. Five years before, Charlie suffered the overwhelming loss of his wife and three daughters in a plane crash. Charlie barely even recognizes Cheadle's character due to the repression of his memories and consequent reclusive childish lifestyle since the accident. It isn't until Alan persists in engaging him in conversation that Charlie remembers who he is. Their renewed relationship that follows will allow Finerman to have a friend who doesn't speak about his loss, eventually enabling him to confront the thoughts and feelings he has suppressed on his own terms.<br /><br />Though writer-director Mike Binder doesn't show much sense of an individual style and some of his shots and transitions are a bit awkward, he does have a knack of getting decent to great performances from his actors while being a talented and funny writer. He shot this film with a digital camera, as more and more filmmakers are doing today, enabling the crew to shoot the night scenes with limited lighting. This kept the colorful backgrounds of New York City in focus, but resulted in creating frequent digital grain, which resembles blue specks scattered and moving on the screen.<br /><br />Almost every main character in Reign Over Me gives a great performance. Jada-Pinkett Smith and especially Liv Tyler are memorable in their respective roles as a frustrated wife to Cheadle's character and a psychiatrist. However, it is Sandler and Cheadle that give some of their finest work to date. They completely owned this movie. Sandler actually plays a character that doesn't outwardly resemble or act like himself at all, partially credited to his Bob Dylan-esquire wig. Though Cheadle's character has more screen time than Sandler, they both should be considered to be leading roles, as they equally support and help each other throughout the film.<br /><br />Music also plays a great part in this film, especially the title song "Reign Over Me," or "Love, Reign O'er Me" by The Who, and later covered by Pearl Jam. In one of the most powerful moments of the film, Binder shows Sandler using music to shut out his feelings and memories, but this particular song provokes such intense emotion that rather than diminishing his anger, it incites his emotions. All an all, Reign Over Me is an enjoyable, sad, yet many times funny film, driven by its amazing leading performances.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Ya. That is what I think. Sure it was still a great show with John in it but I personally think that it is way better without.<br /><br />I love having C.J. and Grandpa living at the house because they are so funny together.<br /><br />When John was still around I really didn't laugh as much as I do now.<br /><br />It is too bad that no more are being made. ( I don't think...) because I would love to see some new material.<br /><br />My favorite character must be Rory. poor Rory is almost always left out. It is always about Bridget or Carrie. WHAT ABOUT RORY!!!??? Honestly this is a great show and to any one who has never watched it you must go and watch it. I almost guarantee you will laugh. well even chuckle.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he "punishes" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.<br /><br />Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.<br /><br />The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.<br /><br />The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.<br /><br />Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.<br /><br />WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.<br /><br />As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.<br /><br />What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.<br /><br />It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.<br /><br />This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.<br /><br />73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.<br /><br />The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.<br /><br />Larissa
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Cartoon Network seems to be desperate for ratings. Beginning with the cancellation of Samurai Jack, the network seemed hellbent on removing all the shows that made it so popular, such as the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab, Dragonball Z, etc. When the ratings started to plummet, CN began putting up some pretty mediocre shows. Though Total Drama Island/Action and Chowder stand out because of their clever writing and audience-pleasing gimmicks, there are plenty of other shows that either terrible remakes (George of the Jungle) or rip offs of other shows, such as The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, where the title character acts just like Spongebob, and then there's Johnny Test, which is something of a replacement for Dexter's Laboratory, though it's much more of a sheer rip off than anything.<br /><br />The show's characters are clearly derived from Dexter's Lab, only this time the focus is on Johnny, a blonde (or fiery-haired) character who torments his twin sisters, Susan and Mary, who just HAPPEN to look just like Dexter, from the orange hair, to the glasses, the impossible technology. There is even a rival genius named Bling Bling Boy or Eugene, who appears to be sitting in for Mandark. Then there's Dookie, Johnny's best friend and talking dog, one of Dexter's...I mean, Susan and Mary's early experiments.<br /><br />Dexter's Laboratory was probably one of the best cartoons on television, with its simple, but effective art style, lovable main character, and episodes that don't seem to be a long drag. Johnny Test is a lot different. The art style here isn't nearly as eye-pleasing. In fact, it looks absolutely awful. The characters have motivations that make them really annoying or repulsive. Like how most of the series' episodes consist Johnny and Dookie's quest for havoc on the neighborhood girl Sissy, whom Johnny secretly likes, or the twins' obsession over a boy next door. Seeing these two geniuses swoon at the sight of abs and the fact that Johnny appears to be someone you would NEVER want to associate with, there is no real connection between the viewer and characters.<br /><br />One thing the series heavily exploits in its name is that Johnny is Susan and Mary's guinea pig for their experiments. These range from turning Johnny fat, ugly, monstrous, and even into a woman. The twins then help Johnny in whatever scheme he's planning in return for his services. Whenever there's an episode involving this kind of "win/win" deal, it usually comes undone at the seems and those that doesn't come completely off the rails never ends satisfyingly.<br /><br />The writing ranges from mediocre to horrid, however. The 'fat' episode constantly repeats "It's Phat with a PH. There's a difference, you know." which is a line that should never be repeated, especially when the episode seems to PROMOTE child obesity, with Johnny becoming a famous star with money and videogames just by becoming fat.<br /><br />Let's talk about how the show doesn't completely rip off Dexter's Lab. The show tosses in a lot of characters, from two Men-in-Black named Mr. Black and Mr. White, a military general who seems to need all his problems solved through Johnny and his sisters, and LOTS of super villains, though even here, the show again steals ideas for other sources, like a Mr. Freeze teenage clone, an evil cat with a butler who wants cats to rule over man (like the evil talking cat from Powerpuff Girls), a bumbling maniac mastermind, a trio of evil skater 'dudes' and even a Mole Man, which is probably the most cliché villain in the media.<br /><br />To top it all off, alongside its ugly animation and unlikeable characters, the voice acting is either passable (like the voices for Mr. Black and Mr. White) to just plain ear-splitting (Johnny, Dookie, and just about every villain in the show). The theme song seems to be the only catchy thing to this show, but then it was redone just a few episodes with a band that just ruined it.<br /><br />So in the end, Johnny Test is not a good cartoon. Its horrible references and jokes about teen culture will dismantle little children's interest in the show, while its bright coloring, ripped-off characters, and dragging episodes will ruin the experience for teens. It's just another one of those crappy shows that Cartoon Network is over-promoting to trick people to watching it (like MTV toward rap). If you need a show that will satisfy your children for a half hour, you'd better stick to Spongebob, because Johnny Test is more of a "test" of patience than anything else.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.<br /><br />Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.<br /><br />Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.<br /><br />Reminded me of drama at school...
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's "monster". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male "hero" who is an "artist" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because "women like that don't exist" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an "AA" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.<br /><br />The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the "bad guys" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an "admirable" person NOT because of his "ignore the idiots" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...<br /><br />The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.<br /><br />SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.<br /><br />10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.<br /><br />9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.<br /><br />8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.<br /><br />7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.<br /><br />6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.<br /><br />5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).<br /><br />4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.<br /><br />3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.<br /><br />2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.<br /><br />1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.<br /><br />Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.<br /><br />Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.<br /><br />I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.<br /><br />*** out of ****
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.<br /><br />I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.<br /><br />I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.<br /><br />This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.<br /><br />Lastly, the musical score is excellent.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I was excited to hear that someone had made a documentary on what it was like to be Puerto Rican. When I heard it was Rosie Perez, I wondered..could she possibly know what it is really like to be Puerto Rican. As far as I knew....she was a Nuyorican. Well anyway, I anxiously sat with my popcorn to watch. I realized 10 min into it that my initial apprehension was right. Rosie Perez has little knowledge about what it is like to be Puerto Rican. This "documentary" is more a 1st hand, very very personal account on what it is like to be a Nuyorican..and all of what that entails. She (like most of the Nuyoricans I know) have a watered down, partial and sometimes twisted sense of history. (How could they not..they live here.) Yes, all of them are proud. As they should be! But a lot don't know the ins and outs of the REAL culture, history and political background or language for the most part. It all became very very apparent with her participation in the Vieques issue. Regardless of my personal take is on this issue..at least I know what the hell the fight is for. There is she is getting arrested for something she knew little about.. and only participated in because it was a "Puerto Rican Cause" I really don't understand how she is not embarrassed to admit to it. For those of you that are not Puerto Rican, please view this as a partial account of a woman's journey of self discovery and acceptance. Do not take this as gospel...a lot of it isn't even true. Please consider the source. Rosie is an actress; not a historian. This movie is not and should never be, for other Nuyoricans, the base for their information. Instead, just a step towards finding more info, learning and debating what the reality is. Not just the one coming from this woman's eyes.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
To be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though! <br /><br />I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!<br /><br />The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the "Nightmare on Elm Street"-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the "Elm Street" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and most of all the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no
There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. "Freddy's Dead", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...<br /><br />so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
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 />
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.<br /><br />One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.<br /><br />Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.<br /><br />The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.<br /><br />Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.<br /><br />The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's "Anna Christie", Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna "Anna Christie" is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's? <br /><br />In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo! <br /><br />Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.<br /><br />Who shines in the German "Anna Christie", who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great! <br /><br />If you have seen the American "Anna Christie" and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
"The Grudge" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original "War Games" if you are feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Perhaps the most gripping and intelligent of crooked cop movies is Otto Preminger's 'Where the Sidewalks Ends,' from a really excellent script by Ben Hecht based on the novel 'Night Cry' by Frank Rosenberg...<br /><br />Dana Andrews is the honest, tough New York policeman, always in trouble with his superiors because he likes his own strong-arm methods as much as he detests crooks... When he hit someone, his knuckles hurt... And the man he wants to hit is a smooth villain (Gary Merrill) who points up the title. 'Why are you always trying to push me in the gutter?' he asks Andrews. 'I have as much right on the sidewalk as you.'<br /><br />Dana Andrew's obsession and neurosis are implanted in his hidden, painful discovery that he is the son of a thief... His deep hatred of criminals led him to use their own illegal methods to destroy them, and the pursuit of justice became spoiled in private vendetta...<br /><br />By a twist of irony unique to the film itself, Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney of 'Laura' are united once more, and Andrews now seems to be playing the same detective a few years later, but no longer the romantic, beaten down by his job, by the cheap crooks... This time, he goes too far, and accidentally kills a suspect... The killing is accidental, the victim worthless, yet it is a crime that he knows can break him or send him to jail...<br /><br />Using his knowledge of police procedure, he covers up his part in the crime, plants false clues, and tries to implicate a gang leader, but cannot avoid investigating the case himself... The double tension of following the larger case through to its conclusion without implicating himself in the murder, is beautifully maintained and the final solution is both logical, satisfying, and in no way a compromise...<br /><br />The film is one of the best detective films of the 50's, with curious moral values, also one of Preminger's best... <br /><br />Preminger uses a powerful storytelling technique, projecting pretentious camera angles and peculiar touches of the bizarre in order to externalize his suspense in realism...
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the "lung tester", for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see "Dr." Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ("Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.") is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?<br /><br />The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.<br /><br />No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.<br /><br />The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are. <br /><br />That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a "co-director"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies
until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses. <br /><br />The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.<br /><br />For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help. <br /><br />There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.<br /><br />The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.<br /><br />The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways. <br /><br />The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.<br /><br />The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law. <br /><br />The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say
which is what the documentary did.<br /><br />What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.<br /><br />While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.<br /><br />I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.<br /><br />All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a hilarious film. Burt Reynolds is a NASCAR star who signs a sponsorship contract with Ned Beatty's Chicken Pit restaurants. The contract has all sorts of humiliating clauses in it, such as forcing Burt to wear a chicken suit during the race! Jim Nabors is his (not quite convincing) chief mechanic. Loni Anderson (oh, yeah!) is assigned by Beatty to keep Reynolds honest and strictly adhering to the contract. This is a funny film in which Burt proves that he ain't too proud. I like it!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
What a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.<br /><br />While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.<br /><br />His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
La Teta i la Luna (The Breast and the Moon) describes the life of a 9-10 year old boy named Tete who is obsessed with breasts growing up in Catalunya. I love this movie because the characters are very honest and very human, like all the characters in Bigas Luna's movies (also director of Jamon, Jamon). Tete reminded me of how intriguing and exciting life can be at that age. Also being from Catalunya (North-east of Spain) it brought lots of memories to my mind. This movie shows how beautiful Catalunya is, nice people, nice life and specially lots of non-uptight people.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD<br /><br />It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
A text prologue warns us that we should not allow evil to enter our house, but I think the more apt word is "entropy." Good grief, what slobs these two babes are!<br /><br />George (Seymour Cassell) is alone in his San Francisco office and his monstrously expensive home in Tiburon while his wife and child are away in San Diego. Two girls (Sondra Locke as Jackson and Colleen Camp as Donna) knock on his door, asking directions. Well, it's raining, and they're shivering like two drenched pitiful kittens, and they're not sure of the address they're looking for, and, what with one thing and another, George invites them to come in and partake of his pizza by the fire. All three of them wind up in George's bath tub and there follows about five minutes of mostly undifferentiated nudity in double exposure, triple exposure, quadruple exposure, and dodekakuple exposure. They spend the night in a threesome and the next morning the girls fix him breakfast. But something has gotten slightly cockeyed because Georgie's guests gobble everything down with their fingers and pour ketchup and syrup all over the linen and -- "You eat like ANIMALS!", George exclaims and tells them to get out. In his dreams. <br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong. Sondra Locke is an extraordinary looking young blond with cobalt-blue eyes and Colleen Camp bounces around like a superball. You gotta say, they breed 'em mighty cute down there in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where Locke comes from, and they breed 'em with bodacious tushes too, as we can't help but note after the first five or ten minutes.<br /><br />But when the girls go berserk, so does the movie. The film is thereafter bathed in a garish green light. The pair put on ghoulish makeup and make gargoyle faces at themselves in the mirrors. They brain a delivery boy and then drown him to make sure. They cuss up a storm and smash windows and furniture. They have one of those scenes in which two people sit across the table from one another, licking food and then jumping each other's bones. <br /><br />And Georgie? They first render Georgie unconscious with mace (which contains nothing that you can't find in that little red bottle of McIlheny's Tabasco sauce in your kitchen cabinet), tie him up, pour flour and milk all over him, subject him to a psychotic trial, put him through one of those Tolstoy-type semi-executions, slap him around, dress up in outlandish costumes, then prance out on him and his virtually destroyed upper-middle-class home, and are dispatched by a delivery van ex machina.<br /><br />As for the acting, it's as if someone had told Georgie, "First act polite to these girls, then act panicked after you're tied up." And to the girls: "First act shy, unwilling to impose on anyone, then act crazy." And that's it. <br /><br />The photography and location work are straight out of a 1970s porn movie. I'm not sure that suggests a total lack of skill. It takes effort and talent to turn San Francisco ugly. The score gives us two Leitmotivs. Georgie's is some pop tune with lyrics about "being free" and "giving in." Jackson and Donna's is a catchy rinky-tink thing called "My Good Old Dad." <br /><br />I approve of the moral lesson behind the story, though. There are some things you should simply not give in to, even though they might look like a lot of fun at first. All very educational.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film concerns the story of Eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. The plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that Eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. But this is inconsequential, as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. Screenplays not always need be 'chatty', but they should at least assist the development of the story. Here one line attempts such as "he just took off" or "I know you don't have love in heart" just do fully evoke something worth the audience's time. Also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. Talk about trying to hard. If you are interested in a good film, the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.<br /><br />Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.<br /><br />I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.<br /><br />Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.<br /><br />The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina..
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to "attract female audiences," when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it "their own story." Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,,
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I gave it an 8 only because it had received such low votes... this is definitely really about a 5.5..... Ummm.. it was kind of bloody, had likeable, shallow characters, and it had some really hot babes in it. I like the eclectic killer, because he didn't kill people the same way everytime... that sometimes gets old.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.<br /><br />The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.<br /><br />I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Streisand fans only familiar with her work from the FUNNY GIRL film onwards need to see this show to see what a brilliant performer Streisand WAS - BEFORE she achieved her goal of becoming a Movie Star. There had never been a female singer quite like her ever before, and there never would be again (sorry, Celine - only in your dreams!), but never again would Streisand sing with the vibrancy, energy, and, above all, the ENTHUSIASM and VULNERABILITY with which she performs here - by the time she gets to that Central Park concert only 2 or 3 years later, she'd been filming FUNNY GIRL in Hollywood and her performing style has become less spontaneous and more reserved, more rehearsed (and, let's face it: more angry) - there's a wall between her and the audience. Live performing was never what she really enjoyed - she did it because she knew it was her ticket to Hollywood, and once she no longer had to do it she's done it as little as possible (and oh, that legendary stage fright provides such a good excuse!).<br /><br />Her vocals here and on her earlier Judy Garland Show appearance are incredible: Streisand could truly make an old song sound new again, and composers such as Richard Rodgers and Harold Arlen loved her for it. But by the 1970s Streisand was trying to be a "rock" singer, her albums pandering to the younger audiences, with over-wrought shrieking of songs that were unworthy of her effort or her voice. <br /><br />In the '80s she came back with that brilliant "Broadway Album," but went on and on about what a struggle it was to get it done, how "they" told her not to do it, etc. Oh please - when has anyone told Streisand what to do? She could have been doing good stuff like that all along, bringing audiences UP to her level instead of stooping to what she thought the young public wanted. (The "Back to Broadway" sequel wasn't nearly as good, as Streisand seems to feel it necessary to improve on other composers' work: if he were alive at the time, would Richard Rodgers have even recognized his own "Some Enchanted Evening"? Rodgers, notorious for taking singers to task for playing around with his melodies, would undoubtedly have been after Streisand to sing what he'd written! She also blows Michael Crawford off the CD in their duet of "Music of the Night" - apparently reminding him just whose CD this is. Why does she insist on taking songs that are duets and singing them by herself, and songs that aren't duets and singing them as duets with someone else who she then goes on to diminish?)<br /><br />Supposedly Judy Garland took Streisand aside and advised her, "Don't let them do to you what they did to me," advice Streisand wasted no time in heeding - despite her protestations to the contrary, surely it looks like it's always been her way or the highway. Just imagine - SHE told the CBS brass how her first TV special would be done - no guests, just HER.<br /><br />But nobody can argue with the results that are so evident here. Treat yourself to this brilliant musical phenomenon BEFORE she was a legend - you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference!<br /><br />PS - I watched this again last night (12/01) after not having seen it for many years - it was even BETTER than I remembered! The 1st Act begins with "I'm Late" and includes "Make Believe" and "How Does the Wine Taste," and Barbra's homage to childhood, "I'm Five" - it climaxes as Streisand appears with full (and I mean FULL) orchestra to sing "People" - she wasn't bored with the song yet and although it's a somewhat shorter rendition it really soars - compare it to some of her later "auto-pilot" versions. The 2nd act (after Streisand's "kooky" schtick-patter, which hasn't changed much over the years) is the famous series of Depression songs set amidst the extravagance of Bergdorf-Goodman's.<br /><br />The 3rd Act is the stunner - call it "Streisand, the Orchestra, and the Audience" (although we never see the audience that supposedly witness this historic event). With her fear of audiences and dislike of such performing, this may have been the toughest part for her, but if so, to her credit it doesn't show. She tears through "Lover Come Back to Me" and the torchy "When the Sun Comes Out" (though I can't remember in which order!), the poignant "Why Did I Choose You? (one of my all-time favorite Streisand performances) and offers a medley of FUNNY GIRL songs, including (of course) "Don't Rain on My Parade" and my favorite song from the score, "The Music That Makes Me Dance". Explaining that "Fanny Brice sang a song like that in 1922, and it made her the toast of Broadway", Streisand then sings "My Man", and it's almost a dress-rehearsal template for her later screen rendition in the FUNNY GIRL film (the main difference being that the black gown here is sleeveless - her film gown had long sleeves and against the black background all we saw were her hands and face), but the vocal here is more urgent and charged than her later film vocal. (Her performance of the song has everything to do with Streisand and nothing to do with Fanny Brice who, of course, never sang the song in such an all-out manner as Streisand does here or in the film - see THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD for a glimpse of Brice's more understated version.) The show ends with Streisand singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" over the credits.<br /><br />When it was over I said to the friend I was watching it with, "She has NEVER, EVER, done anything better!"<br /><br />And she was TWENTY-THREE YEARS OLD!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).
### Response: | positive |