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
Notable only as the acting debut of future big-time Hollywood starlet, Sandra Bullock, this ludicrous action flick is so full of holes that one might easily suspect termite infestation. The storyline is incomprehensible and very poorly thought out. The production values stink of cheese. In fact, a total LACK of production values would have been better...at least the film might have seemed grittier that way. The ADR is laughably bad and omni-present in the film. It's debatable as to whether or not ANY of the dialogue tracks from the actual shoot were used.
The performances are, for the most part, horrible, though there are a few exceptions. In those exceptions, however, the performances are undermined by the fact that the director was obviously giving the actors poor direction and making them act completely out of character at times. (i.e. characters going from passive to panicked in the blink of an eye. Bad Direction.) Also, the constant "weapon sound effects" (magazines being loaded, slides being cocked, etc.) are completely overused and, more often than not, totally out of sync with the on-screen actions. Add to this cheesy "Bad Guy" vocal distortion for the lead villain (mainly so that you KNOW he's the villain in this incomprehensible mess of a film), and you have a recipe for disaster.
The situations in the film go well beyond standard "suspension of disbelief" and become downright laughable. One lead character spends a good portion of the film tied to a chair before he DECIDES to use the butterfly knife tucked in his sock in order to free himself. So, my questions are...why didn't he do this sooner, and why does he even HAVE the butterfly knife. He wasn't searched? RIGHT. This is one of a hundred examples of completely ludicrous situations which have somehow been crammed into this 90-minute package.
In whole, "The Hangmen" plays like an unbearably bad R-rated TV movie from the '80s. If not for the subsequent success of Sandra Bullock, this would have NEVER found its way to DVD. But it has, so my only advice is to steer clear. Watching this film may actually impair your IQ.


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


user
Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress..... But this movie was so horrible, I couldn't help but chuckle throughout the movie in disbelief that I was actually watching something so crappy. Ha ha. The audio editing is horrible, They try too hard to come up with creative camera angles. Because they're just weird and stupid. The script sucked. Acting was horrible, storyline not very good. Very unrealistic, even for a movie. But it is a 20 year old movie..... so I'll give it a bonus point for that. And yeah, the music was terrible. But we all got to start somewhere. And submitting these things is such a hassle..... 10 line minimum... bother. Well now I know why I couldn't find this movie in the movie store.... I had to purchase it offline to see it... good thing it was only $.58 cents.... even though shipping was $2.59. Oh well.... I don't recommend anyone wasting their time and money seeing this film...


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 #1 in the list of worst movies I have ever seen, with "Lessons for an Assassin" on the #2 spot.
The acting is lousy (sorry, Sandra Bullock, but even your performance was horrible!), the music score could have come from a bad x-rated movie and the story was downright ridiculous. It had this in common with a typical action movie: the dialogues were short and consisted mainly of one-syllable words. But contrary to the average action movie, there was no real action in this one. Boring.
The only reason I continued watching it was in the hopes that at one point, there would be at least one interesting scene in this movie ...
Thumbs down 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
What can I say after I say the one line summary. Sandra does a credible job but what with the bad direction and story line it can't save it. Way too much pre occupation with guns. How can the Hollywood types rant about the need for gun control in our society and spend so much time and film footage focused on guns?? It's just worse than expected.


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 soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)


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


user
I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...


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


user
I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.
And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.


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


user
WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.
I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.
Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.
The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!


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


user
The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.
The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.
The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.
Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.
The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.
The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.


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


user
I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:
Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."
Danny - "I don't know."
Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?"
Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad."
Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?"
Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something."
Lisa - "Why am I here?"
Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know."
(moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . "
Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"
See what I mean?
Bottom line - Just say no.


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 one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much.
The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.
Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful.
Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.


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


user
I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.
The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).
In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.
As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!


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


user
My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.


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


user
I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: "What do you mean army buddies?" "What do you mean your dad?"


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 stinks more than limburger cheese! If you find this at a garage sale, LEAVE IT THERE! I love Sandra Bullock and yet HATE THIS MOVIE... Although ashamed, I do own a copy, and the studio has changed the cover to play on the fact that Sandra Bullock is in this at all. They play it up to be "A Sandra Bullock Movie". She only has a small part in the whole movie and she does her best with that, but she is young and had not learned her talent yet. Well everyone has to start somewhere...


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


user
The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.
Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.
Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the "Doom-cam". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.
I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.
I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity.


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


user
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.



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


user
Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.
One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition.


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


user
The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as "beyond belief!" "no words can express how I feel about this" "This movie will move you" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the "gun's eye view" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.


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


user
Oh boy! Oh boy! On the cover of worn out VHS has a picture of Sandra Bullock and her name written on top. I think only reason they had chance to sell the movie in nineties, was because of Sandra Bullock's name. Bullock's fans don't have to disappoint. Sandra is only thing to watch in this movie and her performance is the only you can call acting. Rest of the movie It's fun to watch in first fifteen minutes because it's bad but after that it's going worse. Much worse. Directing is awful. Acting is awful. Script is awful. Dialog is awful. Action is awful. Music is quite good actually. Typical score for eighties action movies. This movie is so bad that it goes close to anything Andy Sidaris has ever produced. It's so bad that there isn't proper word to describe this poor attempt to be a movie. But still, there was Sandra Bullock. And super cool (sarcasm) Jake LaMotta who tried to be Marlon Brando.
I think they can now bring the film out on DVD. It could be cool! And they should write on the cover: ACADEMY AWARD WINNER SANDRA BULLOCk IN HANGMEN
1 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
Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high.
To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:
- The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-cliché Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism
And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...
Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.


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


user
Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue.


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


user
I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.
I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.


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 very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.
The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.
Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.
The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.
the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.
My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.


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


user
The first season was great - good mix of the job and the brother and friends at home. it was actually a pretty funny show.
Now it shows up again and the brother and the two hot chicks are gone -- and the whole thing revolves around the airline company. Even the old man who runs the company has gone downhill - way too over the top, where before it was perfect.
That and no more Sarah Mason - one of the best looking girls in Hollywood.
This is what happens when you let some execs get their hands on a show. You can almost see the meeting "the old man is funny, lets focus on him, make him way over the top and make it all about the airline.. it'll be a nutty version of the office!" Anyhow, no hot chicks, no watch.


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


user
Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like "Arrested Development" and yet they keep this show and "War at Home". I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy "Married with Children", but now it's just getting ridiculous. "The Loop" is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. "Family Guy" and "The Simpons" work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using "no-named" actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.


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


user
Upon a recommendation from a friend and my admiration of Philip Baker Hall I rented the first season disc of the Loop.It's a typical TV comedy with all the clichés that the genre employs with the "wacky" scheming brother (Sully), "ditzy" blonde (Lizzy), token unrequited love interest (Piper), sarcastic Asian helper (Darcy, which reminded me of Arliss, as if ANYone needed to be reminded of THAT show). The plot deals with various bad luck (usually by Sully) that befalls Sam that puts his job at the airplane in jeopardy, only to have him save the day, with 'hilarious hijinks' ensuing in the middle. I didn't descibe a certain episode. I described them ALL to a T. Therein lies the problem as what seems like it might even be passable entertainment at first just gets uselessly stale when watching episodes in a row and growing bored beyond belief at the endless repetition. Sully will do something 'wacky', Mimi Rogers will say something overtly sexual, Russ will tell about his gay son, Darcy will do her impersonation of Sandra Oh on Arliss blah blah blah blah blah. The only positive is the lack of an annoying laugh track. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's any good. Go watch a far better comedy. Arrested Development, Always Sunny in Phillidelphia, two name two off the top of my head. Surprised that this one is still on the air. OH that's right Fox only cancels the good shows, i forgot. Needless to say I don't trust my friend's taste in shows anymore.
My Grade: D+


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 starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.
It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.
As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.
The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.
*1/2 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
I work at Memorial Hermann Hospital (TMC) and was also working at Texas Children's Hospital, Women's Hospital, and West Houston, during Allison. First the shots of the hospital are sadly suburban. The Texas Medical Center has a daytime population density similar to Wall Street!! There are huge skyscraper professional buildings and hospitals. TCH was the largest Children's Hospital before it doubled in size, TWICE! Methodist, with its 1500 beds is one of the largest hospital in world. The Texas Medical Center skyline is bigger than that of Memphis. Yet, the best pics Hollywood could muster are that of some dinky hospital in the middle of nowhere (besides the real pic of the hospital taken decades ago). Also, they combined several real-life characters and portrayed them all in one (super-nurse). I actually know the Medical Technologist(s) working in the blood bank. Two where actually working at the time but the movie shows only one pregnant MT. There was a pregnant MT, and another MT that took the precious patient antibody rolodex (research "alloantibodies" for more info). I will not mention their names (privacy). There was no nurse in the real life lab scene. Hollywood combined these two techs (most likely to save time and money). In the movie, military helicopters (true) had to transfer the our babies (NICU and PICU) to UTMB all the way to Galveston! Why you may ask, when we have the largest children's hospital just down the street? Because Texas Children's Hospital refused to take them. You read right, they REFUSED!!! Being employed by them, I was ashamed. Needless-to-say, I'm no longer affiliated with that facility. Any other comments would be repetitive to the ones already posted by the people that who actually live here, or lived through the experience.


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


user
In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called "stickers". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.
14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.
Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.


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


user
Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from "evidence" to "violence," I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.
Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.


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


user
I do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...


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


user
This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.
The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.
Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.
Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?
Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained.
Awful film on the whole.


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


user
Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.
My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.
After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.
So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.


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


user
The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.
I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.
SPOILER COMING
I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.
NO MORE SPOILERS COMING
For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.
So what has been put before us here? And above all, why?
Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD?
I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...


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 say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.
From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.
To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.
Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.


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


user
I went to the cinema to watch a preview of this film without knowing anything about it. Recognizing Jennifer Lynch's name and seeing the 18 certificate I realised it might be disturbing. In actuality I found the film a farce. I found myself giggling in disbelief through parts of it. The acting is atrocious- Bill Pullman and his ridiculous twitching face. I do almost pity the actors though as the script offers them no chance of any believable character interaction. After some shocking incident, (there is plenty to "try" and shock the viewer in this film), 2 characters are seen sharing a beer and talking about the weather. Everything was overstated, or thought it was being clever when really it was obvious! The performance from the little girl character named Stephanie was the best thing about the film. Quiet and intense. I really could not recommend this film to anyone. Its violent without point, ridiculous characters, bad acting, bad script and plain silly.


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 *good* relatively during the first parts of it.
We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.
Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.
Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.
The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.
We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.
All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.
The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...


assistant
0