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
When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the "zombies" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.


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


user
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.


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


user
I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.
Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.


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


user
oh man, where to even begin.....
dropping your gun to get in hand to hand combat w/ a zombie, while holding a bitten soldier down debating to shoot him b4 he turns, then he turns and bites the person holding him down, turning your back on a "fallen" zombie, continuously shooting the chest and seeing it doesn't work, so they shoot the chest some more, having the idea that a kid slumped at a desk w/ blood coming out of his mouth is still alright, walking along a football field like nothing is wrong then all the sudden noticing the zombie football team doing whatever in the middle of the field like they couldn't have been seen up to that point....
i could go one for a few more hours, but you get the point.....childish writing and dialog, bad directing, horrid special effects, truly sad and undeveloped storyline (zombie infested campus, must get the viral host then lose it....twice), the only plus i can find is that this one doesn't include clips of the actual game during the "action scenes"....
id say don't waste your money, but id be more upset about the waste of time, i saw it on cable and wanted the 2 hours of my life back


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


user
OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.


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


user
OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the "characters" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.


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


user
A college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.
So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.
A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the "Can you hear me now?" gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).
Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.


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


user
So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major "cheese" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.
This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this "infection" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.
The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....
Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.
One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...
Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.
The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an "undisclosed location" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.


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


user
This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.
This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.
First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.
So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.
After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.


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


user
This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding.
The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.
I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?


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


user
Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.



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


user
The trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.
The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.
The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole "I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.
The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming "I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!" ("I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says "You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.", and the two women in his life say "We could see you weekends more often." and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here?
I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.
Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.


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


user
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).
The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.
This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.
This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.


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


user
There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.
This film lies. I give it a zero.



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 one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.
Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.
Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"
I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.
To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.
Don't waste your time with this.



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


user
These days, Ridley Scott is one of the top directors and producers and can command huge sums to helm movies--especially since he has films like ALIEN, GLADIATOR and BLADE RUNNER to his credit. So from this partial list of his credits, it's obvious he's an amazing talent. However, if you watch this very early effort that he made while in film school, you'd probably have a hard time telling that he was destined for greatness. That's because although it has some nice camera-work and style, the film is hopelessly dull and uninvolving. However, considering that it wasn't meant for general release and it was only a training ground, then I am disposed to looking at it charitably--hence the score of 4.
By the way, this film is part of the CINEMA 16: European Shorts DVD. On this DVD are 16 shorts. Most aren't great, though because it contains THE MAN WITHOUT A HEAD, COPY SHOP, RABBIT and WASP, it's an amazing DVD for lovers of short films and well worth buying.


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


user
I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.
Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once.


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


user
Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.
The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.


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 shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,
I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?


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 as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid
The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said "A5zo Al Shai6an". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends "kiss me" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie


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


user
This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid


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


user
This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word "popular" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.
*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).
Screw them all.
Beep 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
The amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of "Tash ma Tash" is also an evidence.
I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.
And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.
Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.
The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.
Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was "kharabeet". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.
A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not "Evil" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.
The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.
We need another "First Film" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!
And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.


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


user
I am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.
This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,"Stinker".
If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this bad.


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 bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.
The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!
The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The "sacred pen" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.
I could go on, but when it got to "inner body bomb defusion" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.
By the way, would a news reporter really say "Downtown Damascus"??


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


user
This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.


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


user
I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.
The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.
I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.
To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of 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
Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.
Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?
As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.
The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).
There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...
WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).
...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?
But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.


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


user
Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.
Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.
The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.


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


user
Well, "built" Doris Day (as Ethel S. "Dynamite" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. "Sam" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard "April in Paris", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming "Secret Love". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.
**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin


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


user
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !
Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster.
However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.
So, how to enjoy this movie on video ?
A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...
B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...
C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.
Bob Raymond


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


user
This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.
As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien
Plot: *1/2 out of ****
Sex/nudity: *** out of ****


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


user
There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping "tough guy" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity "starred" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain "Concorde" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a "Porky's" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious "Airplane!" the following year brought the whole "Airport" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike.
1/10


assistant
0