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
I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.


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


user
Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.
The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)
I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.
Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10


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


user
The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this "thing" has absolutely nothing to do with "Freaks" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. "Freak" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferableand that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!


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


user
I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.
nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.


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


user
As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.


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


user
I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!
But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study "What not to do" in movies.


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 not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.
I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.
I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.



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


user
Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane
Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.
According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly
foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever
when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as
Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be
the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to
bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and
Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and
dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced
by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.
I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version
or read the book, it would probably look ok.


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


user
Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.
To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.
There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.
All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.
Sink me! What a horrible movie!



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


user
I don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.


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


user
I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.
The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?
The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!
Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.


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


user
The screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.


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


user
I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne


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


user
As someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this. It was better written and stuck more to the spirit of the story than this one, which seemed to go out of its way to involve people getting shot. This new adaptation is less light-hearted, yet does not have as much depth, either. Although there is some good acting, the actors did not have much to work with. Nice costumes, though.


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


user
This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.
Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.
As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)
The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but 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
Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to "The Devil's Triangle", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production  whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick  covering the topic earned big money at the box office. "The Devil's Triangle" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of "strange occurrences" and "mysterious vanishings" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words " just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!


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 turkey in the theater, but I had a good time. The special effects aren't worthy of a grade school production. A toy boat, representing a freighter, moving at speedboat velocity on flat waters while wind driven fog blows in the opposite direction. The red and blue flood lamps add that extra dramatic touch. Whatever cache Vincent Price was supposed to bring as narrator is completely overshadowed by dreadful production work. Calling this a documentary is like calling Britney Spears a musician. About 20 minutes into this, something struck me as very funny. Maybe it was Price's overly dramatic intonation of the oft-used line "They vanished into the Devil's Triangle! [cut to black; next story] Once I started laughing, my friends joined in. Next time Vinny said the crucial line, someone in the back yelled out: "Good!" After that, it got almost as many laughs as a Marx Brothers film. Nobody stayed for the dreadfully serious second feature "Chariots of the Gods."


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


user
Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.
The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". Don't bother with 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
It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.


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


user
Filmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as "Whistle Down the Wind" and the original "Stepford Wives", completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from ****


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


user
Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).
I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.


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


user
How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.
MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.
Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.
Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.
It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.
Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.


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


user
Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.
One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.


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


user
"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.
The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".
Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.
I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.
The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.
I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.


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


user
What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".
You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.
This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes.


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 see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful "Twister" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful.


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


user
I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an "artsy film" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one 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
One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that "it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion". This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.
I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.
It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.


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


user
John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.


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


user
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.


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 into this movie with an open mind. I had been too lazy to go to the video store to pick out a movie, and my friend returned with this. I promised him I wouldn't laugh at his choice, but within the first five minutes I told him I would have to take back my promise. We kept watching, just hoping it would get better, but no; a continual mind-rape followed.
This "movie" was probably one of the worse ever committed to film, and surely deserves a place on the IMDb Bottom 100. I really don't know how this got distributed. The lighting was poor. I have seen better acting in elementary school plays. There is really nothing positive to say about it.


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


user
Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the "human" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.
Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead!


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 terrible - honestly. The acting is terrible, the script made me cringe, the effects are completely lousy (which I usually don't mind for older films, but this was made just two years ago), and everything about it just annoys me. A few friends go out on Halloween into the woods and meet a witch and her cannibal son. Of course, before that it has the cliché "You really believe that? Ha ha ha, it's just a story" routine dragged out for a while. The witch's cannibal son was made a retard (I don't know if it was for comedy or to make it creepy, but this film failed at both). It has minimal gore and no nudity, which made a bad film even worse. Heck, the only good thing about this film is the leg eating scene, and even that could of been better.
Honestly, don't even waste your time watching it on cable, and certainly don't consider buying or renting this, else you'll be kicking yourself for wasting time which could of been spent doing something more constructive or entertaining.


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


user
I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.


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


user
This is one of the most stupid and worthless movies ever. It really does not qualify for movie status. It is VERY cheap (apparently shot on videotape), horribly acted, and just plain rotten. I could not believe how cheap and inept this piece of crap was. It looked like a home video! I mean I believe a guy I know a few houses down must have dug out his video camera and made this crap in 2 or 3 hours. It is that bad. I noticed the name from whence this cameAsylumand I will NEVER rent anything with that name on it again!!! When you rent a flick, check to see if it is from this "company." One thing is true though--if you like horribly acted, amateur movies, then you might like this loser. It is absolutely boring and terrible!!! You have been warned!!!


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


user
Susan inadvertently stumbles onto a drug smuggling ring while her realtor gets a flat tire while driving her to see a house. The leader of said drug ring, Mongo (whom only has one week until retirement) thinking she knows much more than this bubbly blond actually does seeks to make sure she won't tell anyone anything and thus begins one of the more bone headed films that I've sat through.
All the actors in this film can't really act in the least. Susan makes a pretty ineffectual hero for most of the movie (she'd never escape multiple times if not for the fact that seemingly every one in the movie wants to have sex with her) and she doesn't take the offensive until the last 20 minutes of the flick. When she does she spouts some generic "I have had enough" line, preach on sister, that very thought ran through my mind multiple times when I was watching this
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
If you like really shocking movies this is for you. The acting is the worst I've ever seen and the story line goes no-where. If you come across this film in your video shop don't even consider borrowing it. The chick on the front cover isn't even the one in the movie.I gave this movie 1/10 only because I couldn't vote 0. Avoid it at all costs.


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


user
I saw this on cable. Someone had to lose their job for greenlighting this one for air. Just because a movie is made does not mean it has to be shown! Savage Instinct should be shown in ALL film classes. It is the perfect template for how to not make a movie. The editing alone is so jumbled you'll think it was assembled by a team of trained (poorly) monkeys, traveling across unpaved canyon road in the back of a jeep, blindfolded and drunk. The audio is often not legible. Acting? I can't call anything I saw here acting. Reciting? Hmmm. Can't call it that either. Failing? That works. All that being said...IT IS HILARIOUS! I cannot stress enough that there is not one redeemable factor in this "film" other than the hilarity derived from it's own incredible ineptness. Fun, in a strictly masochistic sort of way. Watch it...if you dare.


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


user
Bad editing, bad production values, bad continuity, implausible, bad dialogue... this movies is bad, bad, bad. However, if you want a movie to poke fun at (a la MST3000), this is your movie. I wouldn't suggest spending much money on it, but if you do see this movie, make sure it's with plenty of witty, like-minded buddies.


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


user
This movie really sucks. This is my second review because its so bad. The girl on the cover is hot but the girl in the movie is not. I cant believe it was rated R there is basiaclly no violence, no sex, no nudity, no swearing nothing. Really crap film.


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


user
It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.


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


user
One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.
As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense!
The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play!
And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair!
NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!


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


user
You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.


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


user
Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.


assistant
0