empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Visually, this film is interesting. Light is literally thrown in a way, together with cinematography and an alluring introduction before the titles, that had my hopes up at the start, but then - a b-movie is a b-movie is a b-movie, no matter how much spectacle is seen. This film surrounds the life of Albert Fish, one of the most well-known serial-killers in the world. Active around the start of the 20th century, Fish's life is hastily and blurry dealt with before before he started killing children at an old age. This film is based upon two tracks: Fish's life and that of William F. King, lead investigator of the case. What saves this film from becoming a Hallmark spectacle and debacle of the usual sort, whenever films about serial killers are concerned, is the direction, which is a double-edged sword; director Scott L. Flynn sheds focus enough upon the b-actors not to let their flaws shine through too much, but at the same times created a truly dull and stereotypical view of the American police through the King-angle. Sure enough he dealt quite thoroughly with Fish's meet with Grace Budd, the 10-year-old girl that he killed, even though I'm not really sure if her mother was the media-crazed person that Flynn really tries to emphasise that she was. I miss more psychological diving into Fish, not to mention the very little time which was spent on Fish's post-capture. All in all, interesting for those who are into serial-killers, but mostly a let-down; however, if the director will make another film about another serial-killer, I'd definitely see it in hopes that holes were patched-up.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I got this for my birthday in a box set under the name Broke Skull. Well, after watching one on the DVD and being pleasantly surprised, I popped this sucker in. It was worse than I had expected, and I didn't expect much. This movie is basically a convoluted story about a guy who dies and comes back to life with the mob, and other bull crap. There was some interesting ideas in this that were never followed up on. Now everybody has been saying there was a lot of gore, can somebody tell me were? I saw a bad effect of a head being crushed, brain tissue (or something...), and blood coming from the penis area two times. I have to say the the part were the guy gets his man hood bitten off made me squirm, that was the only good thing about this movie. And that gay sex scene was just thrown in there for no reason. The acting in this was Atrocious, really, it blew. That Asian chick was annoying, then the annoying Mexican boyfriend who comes in to just be killed. I say if you get this in a box set, that is fine, but don't spend any money on it, at all.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
We picked this up as a part of a Brentwood set, under the title "The Broken Skull." Shot directly onto video, with widely varying sound and lighting quality, this movie winds up with a hyperactive quality that may inspire the viewer to feelings of nervousness, confusion and irritability - and not in a good, "Evil Dead" kind of way.
Without going into spoilers, what appears at first to be a simple revenge ghost story becomes increasingly convoluted and bizarre. While there are some interesting ideas here, the overall effect is likely to leave you scratching your head and saying "hunh?"
This is a very, very gory movie. The gore effects range all the way from full bloody head appliances to a silly Video Toaster effect that has to be freeze-framed to be (dis)believed. The "Fangoria" level of gross-out effects in this film is really amazing and should likely please the gore-hounds while making anyone with a weak constitution feel a bit on the queasy side.
The Broken Skull is also an extremely noisy movie. It features not only ambient noises (captured by mikes and not replaced in post), but there is a lot of shrieking. No, no, I mean a LOT. A lot, a lot! Characters scream, wail, howl and yell, chitter and laugh maniacally. Turn down the volume if you value your eardrums and your nerves! But you can't fault the cast for their enthusiasm, they really eat up the scenery and sometimes the effect is rather entertaining. In particular, the actress playing a certain Vietnamese immigrant delivers all of the above with a remarkable amount of gusto.
In fact, very few of the actors were wooden. Some of them may have overacted a bit (oh, just a wee smidgen!), but most of them are certainly fun to watch go off. The cast is ethnically diverse and kudos to the filmmakers for that. The two middle-aged white women, however, are two of the most spiteful, exasperated characters since the shopkeeper in the MST3k classic "the Brute Man." Just watch them seethe at all the other characters, it's fun!
In closing, the Headcrusher may not become a horror icon on a par with Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger (or even the Leprechaun), but we can definitely say this ... this was a movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't think it really matters too much what the plot of this movie is about, the main thing you'll notice is the extreme amateurishness of the entire production. The acting is what you'd get if you chose people at random off the street. The sound is really annoying - a medicine cabinet closes with all the gusto of a gunshot going off in your ear, while at the same time the dialog is perhaps one-fifth as loud. Miscellaneous on-set noises dominate the soundtrack to a huge degree, with dialog taking a distant back seat. The theme music sounds as if it was about a quarter done when the movie was released, as large portions of the film don't have any music at all. Camera-work can best be described as a gnarled mess, with close-up shots where a medium angle would be much better, cameramen walking around and jostling the camera every which way, absolutely no attention paid to framing any scene, they just shot everything from whatever position it was most convenient for the cameraman to stand. If the cameraman was a foot taller than the actors and you end up looking at the tops of everyone's heads, well, so be it. Editing is just a butcher job; Everything is tossed together in the most abrupt manner possible, nothing flows or transitions in any sense of the word. I don't know if this was shot on video or perhaps a rented camcorder, I tend to think it was the latter.
I only made it about three-quarters of the way through this thing before I turned it off, I just got so annoyed at the low quality of the production I couldn't take it anymore. It's like a ninth grade audio-visual class project.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".
Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.
But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill.
Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me.
Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries).
Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.
Verdict:
In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: "Horrible, Awful..."


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
wow, this movie sucked.
This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.
Everything about this movie was awful.
The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.
Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.
This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.
If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Just in case the title didn't give it away - this movie is garbage.
Short review? Yeah.
I decided to spend as much time writing this review as Hollywood probably decided to put into the script. I doubt it'll be published considering how poorly I worded everything but if this is and anyone reads it -- stick to cherishing the first Sandlot movie. It completely surpasses its predecessors in every single way. The sequels aren't ever worth buying or seeing and everyone involved in making them should be ashamed for ruining what has to be one of the most classic, original films of our childhood.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.
The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.
Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.
I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, "Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?" It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel "Kilerow 2-och" ("2 Kilers") is on the way and it's just the same story.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I can see what this film was intending to do. Unfortunately it just never quite completes the deal. The "reality crime" aspect works fine and the shots are all first rate. In fact quite a few of the scenes are incredibly evocative in a moody sort of way. Notably the silhouette of the detective talking to the beat up woman, the scene of the detectives going through the garbage, and the father tying flies. On occasion s few scenes bog down in too much dialog. Instead of showing the viewer the writer treats it too much like a book. But the real problem lies in the editing. The story does not flow. It fails to make a whole out of the sum of the parts. In the end you are confused as to what is actually happening. Those who like this sort of detective movie like to follow along, piecing together the puzzle at the same time the lead characters do. With such poor editing it is difficult if not nearly impossible to do this.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie certainly is a weird one to say the least. The basic plot is 3 old business associates invite 2 strangers into their home for returning a lost wallet with 10 bucks in it. The two whom show up fall in love. The 3 older business men die and come back as ghosts to try to help the two younger guests out. Okay so that may make sense but then we have 3 old guys whom apparently have some bread living together..slightly weird here...Harry Carey plays his part way off base you can't tell if he is a nice guy or really a prick. I mean really, make up my mind I can handle it. Then there is Richard Carlson playing James Houston from Texas....hmmmmm, He sounds way more like a southern gentleman from Kentucky than a person from Texas. This one isn't even close.. Then we take the 3 ghosts whom would stand a better chance of helping the New Orleans Saints win a play off game than actually helping out...In fact they are really no help at all and why they are even in the film is beyond any scope of knowledge.. Silly film in which a cast of characters act totally out of character..You can avoid this one..


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I bought this because it was $1.99 and Harry Carey was in it and a friend of mine was in it, and for $1.99, how bad could it be? Then I read some comments here on the film and began to get excited -- maybe this really was a lost gem, one of those terrific little B-movies everyone had forgotten about but which deserved to be resurrected. WRONG! I'm not sure how anyone else can give this thing the praise it got from some quarters here, but I found it one of the most tedious and blatantly bathos-filled movies I've ever seen. And I'm not talking about Richard Carlson's hokey Texas accent (straight from the Georgia part of Texas, I guess). It's just dumb. No one in the film behaves like a real human being. No one. And no one does anything believable or interesting. It's not even a cliché-fest. It's just 80-something minutes of frames going by. It even managed to make Harry Carey, Maria Ouspenskaya, and C. Aubrey Smith boring. Now THAT'S unbelievable.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
First of all, let me say that I am in no way denying the importance of the subject - quite the opposite. I am Polish and I have been aware of the Katyn massacre for quite a long time (in fact, two of my family members died there), so I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.
I think the main problem lies with the script, which encompasses too many subplots and characters, none of which are properly developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional; their stories are intertwined, but lack overall meaning. In my opinion the cast doesn't really have a chance to show their ability. The exception is Andrzej Chyra, portraying Jerzy - the only interesting character. I wish the story was more focused on him.
As a result, the film lacks emotion. Before seeing it I thought I would be moved, if only for sentimental reasons - but in fact I was watching it with an odd sense of detachment throughout, except for the final execution scene. It is done well and its placing is interesting and provides a climactic ending, although the idea of the Lord's Prayer being recited in unison by the executed officers seems a bit far-fetched.
To conclude, I suppose the film may have some educational value for those who are not familiar with the portrayed historical events, but in my opinion it fails as a work of cinema.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.
Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".
If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.
The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.
The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.
There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I'm guessing that the movie was based on a hefty book. Given the number of characters and subplots during Katyn, I thought that the movie creators, perhaps the writer or director, intended to create an epic movie. But really there wasn't enough time to properly spend on developing characters or story. Aggravatingly, there were many unrelated side-stories that could have been edited out.
In relating the events leading up to the mass-murder of all these intellectuals and officers, I don't think the movie explained any reasons why murder was necessary. Was it political? Philosophical? Revenge? The interesting part of historical movies are seeing personal motivations or emotions. Instead, the murderers of Katyn seemed like automatons, controlled entirely by Stalin, who's appears occasionally framed as a charcoal sketch. The portrayal of the Russians and Germans seemed entirely one-dimensional. (Are Polish people just that angry at the Russians?) Besides being badly edited and biased or at least unrealistic, choices of music and cinematography felt mismatched to each other and to the movie itself. I don't think you can really shoot an epic war film or war event on hand-held camera. (But if the director went with a character-driven story, perhaps by focusing on a single family, maybe the handy-cam approach would have worked better.) And if you use really dramatic music, it needs to be better balanced to the type of shots made.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie is a shame especially considering Andrzej Wajda is not an amateur, but professional director. However this movie fails to deliver anything you could expect.
First of all -- I am Polish, so I can tell all the background story, because I read books. But how can you tell there is even a war from this movie -- bunch of people are going back and forth, some soldiers are shouting... This is really The Second World War or soldiers are on vacations?
Acting and dialogs -- poor, miserably poor. A.Żmijewski, D.Stenka, M.Komorowska, W.Kowalski, A.Chyra fit in their roles, the rest of (Polish) cast is out of the place (most notably M.Ostaszewska, one of the leading characters, what an unfortunate choice). 99% of the dialogs are not spoken, they are just put there, actors had difficulties to perform and it is no surprise considering what odd things they had to say.
And this leads us to the most disappointing issue -- you can't feel it. Everything is so theatrical, artificial. There is no real life, there is no feeling in it. There are a lot of original footage from the WWII and, guess what, the material is much more powerful, dramatic, than what A.Wajda did.
I can see only one positive -- despite historical mistakes (like acronym ZSRR; it was made for post-1945 propaganda purposes, to please Polish that ZSRS was gone, and now there was ZSRR, but in 1940 there was no ZSRR!), luckily it is undoubtedly shown killing in Katyn was done by Soviets (yes, it is a fact, not some controversial gossip). Great, two hours for 5-10 minutes scene.
Anyway -- time and potential wasted. This is tragedy of epic proportions, will to fight in 1939 (barely shown), not declaring war against Soviet Union by Polish authorities (sic! not shown here), imprisonment of soldiers shortly after, living in the outrageous conditions (not shown here), hope and fear what will come next (barely shown) , and then... extermination. Hand to hand with Germans -- Soviets were exterminating Polish nation, aimed at people who constituted the backbone of Poland. Unfortunately they succeed, and the results are still visible to this very day.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)
you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....
I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....
While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching "Stalker" or "Solyaris" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This self-important, confusing b+w "film" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got "visceral imagery" and "subtle" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the "film" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What a drawn out painful experience.
That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.
This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.
Avoid this movie at all costs.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.
The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.
The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.
One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.
In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a "Bourne identity" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.
Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material.maybe.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Over acted, heavy handed, full of speeches, preachy, on the nose, and over stylized in a way only MTV could be guilty of, Stop-Loss is agit-prop garbage. I expected a lot more with talented young actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ryan Philippe, but Screenwriter/Director Kimberly Peirce does a hatchet job of portraying the ill effects of war on American youth. I'm sure she did some work researching the Iraq war and the young men fighting in it, but you'd never guess it from watching Stop-Loss. In many ways this mess reminded me of Catherine Hardwicke's Lords of Dogtown, an equally inept, overly stylized, TV movie-like waste of solid subject matter.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!"


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I find it terribly ironic that "left wing" Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.
If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.
On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.
Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.
Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.
A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.
I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.
Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is one of those so-called "Hollywood Social Commentary" films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clichéd and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that "If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies." In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clichéd imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a "Road Trip" with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand.at least it would like to think so. As far as I was/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
After watching Stop-Loss, I find myself against disappointed in Hollywood for making such a stinker. Gone are the days of glory of the films of the 1940's that made one proud to be an American, fighting the evilness that desires conquest abroad and death at home. What we are left with is dribble frothing at the mouth of rabid anti-Bush radicals. The story tells of three young men who return home from the war. One descends into out-of-control madness, culminating in his death. The main protagonist deserts his country at a time of war, and destroys his best friends relationship with his fiancé at the same time. The third truly is the hero of the story, electing to continue the fight that was brought to our shores nearly eight years ago. What makes this movie bad, is not the acting, but the premise behind it. We are lead to believe that decorated soldiers are in fact haters of our country. Desertion is akin to treason in a time of war, and the main protagonist flirts with it throughout the movie. This paradox is designed to weaken the audience's reaction to the central act of the movie. We are not supposed to find fault with King, since he wears medals, but his actions don't just merit it, but cry out for it. He is not an anti-hero. In order to accept the movie, the audience must accept the correctness of desertion because the story paints King as nothing else short of a hero. I cannot accept that, since it is like asking me to call the sky yellow on a clear blue day. Furthermore, derision for the real hero is heaped upon, the man who re-enlists and continues to serve his country. I would only recommend this stinker to someone who needs convincing of the decay of Hollywood, as it is a clear example of it. No wonder it fared poorly in the box office.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is the kind of movie which is loved by 50-year old schoolteachers and people who consider themselves aware in social issues - but really haven´t got a clue. The actors - I think all of them are amateurs - do their best, but the script is so full of cliches and stupidities that they can´t save it.
Worst of all though is the scool cabaret that the kids are working on - brings back all your worst memories from acting classes in school. The lyric to one of the songs goes something like this in a fast-translation 2.30 in the morning: "I´m the dwarf of society, an emotionally crippled individual."
Please!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.
We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.
There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.
Watch something else.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
HANDS OF THE RIPPER
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Mono
An Edwardian doctor (Eric Porter) uses newfangled Freudian analysis on a young girl (Angharad Rees) who turns out to be the daughter of Jack the Ripper, and just as deadly...
Unlikely Hammer horror, in which a respectable society figure takes charge of a beautiful young waif without attracting so much as a whiff of scandal, even when she takes to murdering all and sundry with a variety of lethal implements (broken mirrors, hat-pins, etc.)! L.W. Davidson's screenplay wanders aimlessly from one murder to another, sacrificing the material's inherent subtext (Porter's obvious attraction to Rees) in favor of commercial melodrama, and the tone remains subdued throughout. Some of the gore scenes are surprisingly vivid, even for Hammer, and these were clipped from the original US release (despite an R rating from the MPAA), though the complete version is now available on home video. Porter and Rees give excellent performances, and the climax in St. Paul's cathedral is a definite highlight, but the rest of the film is strangely hollow and unaffecting. Directed by Peter Sasdy.


assistant
0