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
This film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.
The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing time


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


user
Bad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names!


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


user
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.
I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant "to add Brechtian distance". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.
Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less "stylish" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.


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


user
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!


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


user
Swoon focuses on Leopold and Loeb's homosexual relationship - a facet of the case that has been mostly (and unjustly) ignored since their trial, even by Leopold himself in his autobiography. But, even in its treatment of this Swoon over does it by far. Worse, it twists, combines, and straight out alters the details of the case which will irritate anyone who knows much about it while at the same time managing to confuse those who are not familiar with it. While it is an interestingly made film, Swoon stinks.
1 out of 10 - awful.


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 desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . .


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


user
As a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...
From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.
Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.


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


user
I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point.
I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....
The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.
You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!
On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.
I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?
Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.
Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?


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


user
I just went to see this movie with a friend. I quickly looked and read a short synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. We came out the movies not feeling very sure if we liked it not.
The acting was good enough and connection with characters was OK. The main character I thought acted a lot like someone like Van Helsing. Yes it was pretty entertaining.
But the plot I felt like it was used from other movies. The script was a bit weak, I'm not sure why every time something bad happens, the main character says "Oh my god" every time.
The special effects worked well, but (sorry for this spoiler) the main monster at the main climax reminded me a lot of the Balrok out of Lord of the Rings.
Overall, the movie was OK but I felt like it's been done already. Go and see buy all means but don't expect too much.


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


user
Just saw this at the cinema. I haven't read the books. There is nothing new about this film at all.
the bad guys seem to die with a couple of slashes no matter how many times our hero has been stabbed with a big sword he keeps on going looking the same (ish)! There are several action scenes but they are very fake. filmmakers seem to be under the impression that whenever they cant be bothered to choreograph a fight scene they just move the camera up close, move fast and turn the music up......... This leaves me feeling conned yet again.
I admire them for attempting to tackle a dark storyline without the normal Hollywood cheese but I'm sorry to say the filmmakers have failed miserably. The characters are 2 dimensional. We hardly get to know them or feel for them at all. The lead has a charming farmers accent oo arrr..... though it seems he hasn't got much to say...
Don't bother watching this unless you are bored and got it half price from blockbusters....


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 called "Solomon Kane". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.
As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.
I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars.


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


user
I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it "Solomon Kane" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.
It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).
With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say "From the creator of Conan" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new "Conan" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three "boss levels" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.
If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.


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


user
Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is "different", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that "she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film". "She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different".
This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.


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


user
This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the "Kharis" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio.


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


user
Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.


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


user
The Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.
The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.
There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.
It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on 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'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.
Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time "The Mummy" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.
It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.
At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.
The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.
4/10


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


user
Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was "Best Picture" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.
Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.
This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.


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 dated in so many ways, it's sensational. You can either laugh at it or shake your fists in rage.
This movie deals with many problems of American history, but with the typical white-male-Christian-American paternalism: The main character is one of those I-can-do-it-all-and-you've-got-to-love-me-for-it-kind-of-guy. He is so pompous and not to be taken serious at any time. What a horrid creature! His wife is a weak little woman for the first part of the movie and a still very weepy, but stronger character in the end. Too bad she still forgives his cocky ways after he's left her for the second time. It's just sad that the character didn't really change at all. Even though she is supposed to portray a strong and independent woman in the end, she is consumed by worry about her adventure-seeking husband. So 2 out of 10 points from the feminists among us (and those are only for the good intentions...)! The problem of Indian suppression is dealt with quite nicely, but there is that patronizing story-telling again. And the fact that all African-American characters are the typical stereotypes makes the movie even more hypocritical. I was so enraged most of the time! So one point (for trying) from the civil rights movement.
I know, that the movie was done at a different time. I love old movies and I have a lot of patience with some of those dated point of views. But this was just disgusting!
What saves this movie are the parts without the main character. Mr Dix's acting is way over the top and smug. Maybe that's why his character is so disagreeable... I liked Mrs Dunne's performance, even though her character enraged me at times.
But I must say the famous land rush scene was incredibly done. And the way that the Oklahoma settlement was portrayed made the movie worthwhile. It's just amazing how civilization rose out of the dirt and dust of the 19th century. And I don't understand the problem some have with that church scene. I thought it was quite funny and amusing. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but I liked it. So 9 points for those scenes and the impressive storytelling of the development of the Oklahoma state. That makes about 4 points altogether!


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


user
Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the "best" pictures.


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


user
Like a lot of films from the early sounds days, Cimarron must be viewed more for historical interest than as compelling entertainment. The hammy acting of lead Richard Dix, nominated for best actor, can be excused as a relic of the silent-film school of acting. However, even giving benefits of the doubt, Cimarron is a badly shaped piece of drama -- a bloated film that moves from unrelated sequence to unrelated sequence with little dramatic impact. Offically, the film is two hours and four minutes; it feels like four hours when you're watching it. There is no reason to waste your time on it unless you want to see every Best Picture winner or have a keen interest in the early sound days. In my opinion, Cimarron is the worst choice for best picture in Academy history and the award should have gone to City Lights or Little Ceasar. Cimarron is barely remembered today, and would have be remembered at all if not for its Oscar win.


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


user
The selection of the bloated, boring, and racist "Cimarron" ranks as the worst choice for Best Picture in Oscar history. Poorly acted (particularly by the justly forgotten Richard Dix, whose performance as the self-centered and irresponsible Yancey Cravat ranks as one of the most narcissistic characterizations in screen history) and leadenly paced, the film is truly shocking today because of the racist slant towards its one black character, who is introduced by being shown sleeping in a chandelier.
Other comments by IMDb reviewers have dismissed the attitude towards this character as being merely dated, but many films that appeared during this period did NOT depict blacks as shuffling, lazy mental deficients in the manner that this behemoth takes great delight in; so that argument seems weak to say the least. But whether you regard this demeaning characterization as in shockingly bad taste for anyone at any time or merely the forgivable ignorance of a less-educated era, it is very painful to watch with 21st century eyes.
But even this might not matter if the film weren't the overlong bore that it is. Voted the Best Picture Oscar at the 1930/31 Academy Awards when such enduring classics as "City Lights," "The Public Enemy," "Dracula," "The Dawn Patrol" and "The Blue Angel" failed to be nominated, "Cimarron" is by far the worst selection to join the Oscar pantheon.


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, of the 67 of 71 best pictures I have seen, by far the worst. First of all, I found the plot line somewhat absurd - the absent husband for 25 years/ still in love/ not even a letter! Give me a break. And why was the guy who was absent for so long coincidentally working on an oil rig next door to the congress-woman's party? This film also exhibited some of the worst stereotyping of African-Americans that I have ever seen. It makes Gone With the Wind (see Prissy) look downright progressive! I have scarcely seen a movie that I disliked this much. UGH!


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


user
I must have been in a good mood to give this shameful, predictable, embarrassing movie even a 3. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the gratuitous sex although I admit the rotational style of bonking was something I had not seen (nor experienced) before. And I guess they also saved a few bucks by showing the same sex scene three times. Then there are the inconsistencies. The "Oakville Tribune" seems to be in a green part of whatever town it was supposed to be. (Hamilton Ontario???) Yet in the scenes on the roof, it appears to be in an industrial area with a steel mill belching smoke and flames. Also, the inside of the building --- the newsroom --- the stairways --- seem much bigger than the outside. SPOILERS HERE Then, when our intrepid reporter finally gets fired, she comes back to the building several times, once after hours. Hardly likely. The ending is also pitifully predictable...the classic bait and switch caper in which the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. But my major objection is the fact this is yet another movie financed with Canadian and Ontario tax credits which is ashamed to set itself in Canada, yet again proving that the Canadian film industry is craven and opportunistic. A country's movies must do more than just provide jobs. They should reflect the culture. It's bad enough that the American studios use Toronto as a stand in for New York. But it is embarrassing and infuriating when Canadian producers (in this case, CanWest Global) do it with help from the federal and provincial governments. In a word... BAH!


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


user
The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.


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


user
I've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...
Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated/helped/assisted some other good director n made the movie.
Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!


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


user
Aaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the "hero" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.
This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.
We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.


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 really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.
I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.
In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.
In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.
Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.
But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear.


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


user
A young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.
Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in "Wall Street".
If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of "Easy Rider", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in "The Accused".


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 has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all.
All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial cliché of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...
I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.


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


user
I watched this movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see why.


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


user
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.
The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.
Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.


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


user
Not as bad as 1992's "Nails" (where Hopper plays an "unstable" cop) but pretty bad. How can a movie with such a great cast go so wrong? This film manages to find a way. The story was pretty stupid and Hopper's direction seemed like he had never directed before. All of the long shots in the beginning were bothersome. Lots of meaningless scenes with a lot of meaningless dialogue.


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


user
WOW, I'd hate to sound opinionated, but anyone that rated this movie any higher than I just have must have an I.Q. that reaches unimaginably low depths which reach out beyond time and space and connect at planet "Hopper-is-a-retard-for-making-this-movie". WOW this movie STANK. Fred Ward's haircut looks SSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPIIIDDD! I actually considered mailing Fred Ward some money in compensation for that miserable haircut he owned in this awful film. Jodie Foster, of course didn't have much to work with but still manages a terrible performance throughout. Joe Pesci, oh my...Joe Pesci (who mysteriously is not cast) plays THE ULTIMATE stereotypical Joe Pesci movie character, complete with mob killing and constant use of the F word. You won't believe your eyes. Dean Stockwell, watching him in this mess made me feel bad for him because I actually thought he was either intoxicated or temporarily retarded throughout the course of the film. Jon Turturro must have been intoxicated himself when he agreed to be in this, along with Vincent Price, Bob Dylan, and Charlie Sheen. I know what you're thinking, GREAT CAST! I know, and it was the WORST great cast film I've ever seen. Dennis Hopper directs and stars, and does equally bad in both areas. How the man could have directed EASY RIDER and then this is FAR beyond my excellent imagination. His OUTRAGEOUSLY bad hit-man character accent is beyond the realms of horrendous, and only is equaled by the hilariously bad ending. They (Hopper and Foster) are the most uninteresting couple I believe that I have ever come across in my exposure to the world of cinema, and you will be cheering for them to lose and then be grandly maddened by the ending. What exactly are the two of them WEARING at that action filled conclusion? I don't know, but I do know that if I ever meet Dennis Hopper, I will make immensely make fun of him for being responsible for this waste of celluloid. Join me! IAN


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


user
A rather mild horror movie; if not for a couple of sex scenes, it could easily have been a TV movie. Plot holes abound (one example: why would there be a secret passage from the 18th century leading from the upper floor of a house that was burned to the ground and a new building put ther 200 years later?), cardboard acting, characters doing things that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size wouldn't do...
It's got a few fun moments, but overall it's a sub-par film that managed to get Roy Scheider because his bills were due. If you're looking for an extremely formulaic, predictable film that might provide a few laughs, it might be worth watching. If not, then this one's not for you.


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 bad and the movies about how some college students stay at a house to get money by renovating it and then they find out that the house has a woman Deamon in it and that there is a portal to hell.In this movie there are heaps of stupid scenes like at the start of the movie how they are cleaning the house and they start to dancing to a cheesy song and some of the Demons at the end of the movie are just some guys in bad costumes trying to make scary sounds and there are some good gore scenes like when the Professor gets his face ripped of.I only hired this movie because i am a big fan of horror movies and its only worth watching if u are a fan of horror movies.The acting in this movie is really bad the only good actor is Roy Scheider from the great movie Jaws and over all this movie has heaps of flaws and my rating is 4 out of 10.


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 lamest, crappiest, idiotic, stupid movies i ever saw in my entire life... I can't believe there are directors who make these kinds of movies... this movie is a disgrace to horror genre... acting ??? Oh! no !!! i couldn't bear... it's full of anguish... don't ever watch this movie... you'll feel like u are being tortured to eternity... please, save yourself from the horrible fate of watching this movie... if you really want to live, don't watch it... there are very good horror movies...
this movie doesn't deserve tat single vote too... but, i hate to vote if I want to post my comments...


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't figure out what Jon Voight could POSSIBLY have been thinking when he got involved in this tenth-rate, incoherent, pretentious, mind-numbing slop. He helped to write the alleged "script" himself, and he should be damn well ashamed of it. The film (I can't call it a "movie" because it barely moves at all) is rambling, embarrassingly pretentious drivel--sort of like a really bad Oprah Winfrey show, but worse. It meanders senselessly back and forth from medieval times to modern-day Los Angeles, with Voight as a television producer who thinks he is the reincarnation of a medieval prince who must save the kingdom from the machinations of his evil brother, and somehow this gets transferred to modern times where Voight has to save the country from the evil machinations of an oil company executive. If the bizarre casting (Wilfrid Brimley, Frankie Valli (!), Kaye Ballard and Armand Assante, among others) isn't enough to kill it, the stupefyingly inept direction, the washed-out photography (it looks like it was shot with a really cheap 16mm camera), the almost complete lack of editing (scenes either go on and on endlessly or are chopped off in the middle of a sentence), and Voight's embarrassing, apparently stream-of-consciousness "acting" are enough to bury it, which is exactly what should have been done with it. A jaw-dropping experience. Avoid this dog 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 was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. "eternity" never-ending life. Experiences after death and "dejavu". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about 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 movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'?


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


user
In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)
Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.


assistant
0