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
Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.
Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.
And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.
Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.
There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trashjust another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.


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


user
Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as "Zombies") is a rare find  a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.
I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed  the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors  aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.
As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well  it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).


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


user
This starts off in Pennsylvania in 1913. A bunch of kids are killed in a mine explosion purposely set off by the mine's owner. Cut to 2006. Recently widowed Karen (Lori Heuring), her teenage daughter Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and little girl Emma (Chloe Moretz) move to a remote house located near that mine. What they don't know is the ghosts of the little kids haunt the woods and kill anyone who's around after dark.
Slow and boring "horror" movie. The premise is obvious and has been done to death already. Also there are huge gaps in logic in the story. It's never made clear why these kids just kill anybody or why they EAT the bodies afterwards (Yes--it's shown). They're dead already--why do they need food? And why haven't they gotten the main villain in the story long before? He was around the area. Why pick this time to attack him? Also the characters aren't the least bit likable. Sarah comes across the worst. It has a few saving graces. The location is beautiful and eerie at the same time, some of the killings were VERY bloody and brutal and the kids themselves looked spooky silently walking through the woods at night. But, all in all, I was bored and fighting to stay awake. You can skip 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
This movie is very much like every other modern horror movie. It's predictable in the way it gets build up and progresses and just never succeeds in bringing anything original or shocking to the screen. That's really the biggest disappointment of the movie, that overall still had a promising main concept for a movie of its sort.
You can call this movie a big walking modern horror movie cliché. It has all of the elements in it that make modern horror movies often not so very great ones to watch. One of these aspects is a moaning and very naive little kid. Why do they keep putting this sort of stuff in movies? Same goes for the sort of drama aspects, that involves the family. It just doesn't work out for the movie and is far from interesting or effective. It often instead causes the movie to drag in parts and become an annoying one to watch.
So it has all of the clichés present but it also doesn't succeed at bringing any of these clichés well to the screen. As an horror movie this simply is a very poor one. It doesn't handle its horror or tension very well. For the fans of the genre there is very little to enjoy. The movie its story isn't too well connected and build up within the movie. Too often the movie sleeps in at parts and it doesn't ever allow its horror to fully kick in.
The movie is also often way too dark (no doubt as an attempt to hide its fairly low budget) and it shows very little gore as well, mostly due to the fact that you simply can not always see things so very well.
You can just tell by looking at this movie that director J.S. Cardone doesn't has much talent for the genre and doesn't know how to handle its present ingredients properly. He did some attempts in the past but all of his movies have failed so far. he just keeps trying unfortunately. Who knows, perhaps with the right people behind the camera's (like Tobe Hooper, who was initially attached to direct) this movie still could had been something decent.
It's a poorly cast movie, with mostly big unknowns in it. Biggest name of the movie is Ben Cross but his role is just way too small and in a way also not really relevant enough for the movie and its story. It didn't even seemed like he had much fun playing.
Just skip it.
4/10


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


user
Director J.S. Cardone presents something a little scary and a little creepy, but nothing more. A widowed mother Karen Tunny(Lori Heuring)inherits a home in the Pennsylvania mountains; so she takes her two daughters and moves into the sprawling estate in what seems the middle of nowhere. But it is somewhere, somewhere ninety some odd years ago a tragic mining accident claimed the lives of numerous children who were forced to labor in the dark and dank. The area and especially the Tunny estate seems to be haunted by the spirits of the tiny little wicked souls. The legend is the screaming children come out in the moonlight to seek their revenge; and you better believe it. Also in the cast: Ben Cross, Scout Taylor-Compton, Chloe Moretz, Julie Rogers and Geoffrey Lewis.


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


user
... And boy is it soft
I saw this on cable channel Bravo one Saturday night and here in Britain we often have these dire " Erotic " soft core movies turning up late at night on Bravo . This one follows a WEIRD SCIENCE type plot of a couple of college geeks building a virtual reality headset that makes you have sexual fantasies .
When you`ve seen one of these movies you`ve seen them all with a bunch of bimbos looking like they`re advertising silicone implants . Come on I`ve actually seen breasts in real life ( I`m sure some other of us have too ) and they wobble around unlike here where they defy the laws of , if not physics than at least gravity . The sex scenes are these tedious affairs where a well buffed geezer rubs himself against his co-star without any dialogue or sound apart from some muzak and when they climax it looks like they`re both having a bad attack of constipation . The girls themselves are very pretty especially Brandy Davis and Nikki Fritz but they`re wasted in these type of soft core movies
And if it`s fantasy you`re after I recommend the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy


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


user
The main character of this sex-filled drivel, Mel (Ethan Hunt), notes on several occasions, "She deserves better than this!" The "she" he refers to is Ginger, played by beautiful Brandy Davis, who indeed DOES deserve better than this. Brandy deserves better than this film, its lame script, and perverted Mel. A guy who gets off at watching his dream girl have sex with another man, even in virtual world, seriously does not deserve her AT ALL. An A- for the simulated sex scenes, an F for the script.


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


user
With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, "Aau Chin" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.
Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?
The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.
A 3/10 ....


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 if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1/2)


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


user
My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.


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


user
Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a "spoiler", because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent "Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders"


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


user
Awful in a bad/good way...this movie has officially become the worst "made for TV movie" in my book...except for the camp value it offers, I give it a 1 in quality and a 10 for the camp value. Suggestion: Watch with friends, champagne and plenty of popcorn...you'll want to throw some at the screen! Preferably friends who like Chris Noth from his 'Sex in the City days'...this movie is dreadfully funny. This is definitely the lowest point in the careers of all cast members...honestly, I don't know how they controlled the laughter as the lines were delivered! Daniel J. Travanti is absolutely pathetic. EVERYONE participated in the school of over acting; and poor Joan Van Ark, I believe she was the only one taking this theater of the absurd seriously...she is credited as a producer though. Her "Mom" jeans and bad plastic surgery are scene stealer's. This movie also crosses the oh so delicate line of social incorrectness when they introduce a mentally challenged character into the plot. This is an obscure movie showing on Lifetime listed as {With Harmful Intent}....has anyone else had the pleasure?


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


user
We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.
I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.
This has to be the worst/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the cliché' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.


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


user
American Tourist on package tour in Asia suffering recent bereavement decides to break law by: 1 Ignoring curfew; 2 Joining revolutionary army; 3 Possessing and using illegal firearm...... etc etc What is meant to be a political and educational statement about the so called atrocities of a military dictatorship in Asia ends up as a "How To" travel guide for disillusioned Americans....especially those who wish to protest that the water in the hotel does not work.... Regrettably the authors of this silly yarn have no clue about Asia...nor it seems in writing sensible dialogue... example:...our human-rights heroine searching desperately for medicine in the furthest outreaches of the Asian jungle miles from anywhere comes across a peasant and asks: "Excuse me-does this town have a pharmacy?"...Well....those who know something about the Asian jungle will appreciate how ludicrous that scenario really is.... Mind you I was recently in the Thai jungle and an American asked me.... "excuse me....do you know where is MacDonalds?" This movie is meant to be a serious drama but ends up as a parody and rip-off of all those "killing fields" type of films designed to confirm tha Asian stereotype held by much of western "civilization" and re-inforced by Hollywood Fantasies such as this..... The basic message of this picture is: "we Americans...coming from the worlds only true democracy have a divine right to go to all other nations...and put right their wrongs.....screw-up their environment....and teach them about freedom....." (see for example The Beach......at least Leo did it with a bit more style)....of course Vietnam is another story.... And.....the educated Asian may well ask why the Yankie Gungh-Ho attitude about Asia should come from a nation whose main contribution to humanity has been helping to spread Cancer... Aids.. Gun carrying kiddies and Jerry Springer......et al.. At the end of this picture the cynical viewer may well be cheering for the Burmese Military..... 3 out of 10.



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


user
This hokey movie left me groaning after just about any exchange of dialogue or plot complication. Patricia Arquette, though pleasing to look at, gives a below par performance from her usual mediocrity. My friends and I have coined the phrase "Beyond Rangoon" to mean anything really bad. A lowpoint for Boorman.


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 surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.
I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.
I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle.


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 was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought "oh no, here we go again", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.


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


user
I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.
1/10!!!!!


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


user
This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.


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


user
Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.
After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs "AWESOME".
Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.
I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's "look, I'm here too" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a "pass if you're above 18" all over it.


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


user
A ridiculous, badly acted Mini Cooper infomercial. Includes cameos from Pepsi, Dell, etc.
Absolutely nothing worth rescuing here. Particularly bad are Donald Sutherland, the music score, scene transitions, etc. An embarrassing production.
Hey, THEY should pay YOU for watching 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
This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original "Italian Job" entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie "scripted" by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly "directed" by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.
The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:
(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)
(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters
(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.
(4) Er, that's it.
Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine.
Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.
Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie.


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


user
I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.
Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.
The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.
Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.


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


user
"The Italian Job" is a caper movie done by the numbers. Riding on the back of every caper cliche, it rises to no particular heights and will be a movie footnote by about the end of the month.
The biggest problem is that "The Italian Job" possesses no imagination at all. I've seen it all before and done better then. The acting is fine the cinematography is completely acceptable, but this film breaks absolutely no new ground.
Let's tick off the cliches:
- "old-school" criminal father figure and his protege
- another gang member jealous of protege
- a double-cross
- only bad guys use guns while good-guy criminals don't have to
- good criminals always outwit the bad guys
And that's about the first fifteen minutes. Everything is so predictable. Even the heist and car chase scenes, supposedly the highlight of the movie, seem pretty ordinary. This is especially true since they appeared in the trailers for the film so I already knew what to look for.
For me, a caper film works only if it has an element of realism - that maybe, just maybe, it could be pulled off without relying on a deux ex machina or "just because" moments. Parts of "The Italian Job" just throws that out the window, with computers doing things that computers can't do, the good guys not hitting anyone with their driving (especially going down the stairs) and not one single police car responding to street explosions, recklessly driven minis or even a low flying helicopter. Must be a heck of a city for these things not to rate a response.
The acting is passable, with the crew (Seth Green, Jason Stratham and Mos Def) being at least fun to watch. Mark Wahlberg is just too smarmy as the "nice guy" hero while Charlize Theron is about the only actor called on to display some kind of range. Donald Sutherland is a class act as always and shows up Wahlberg's deficiencies every moment they are together.
Overall this is a pretty uninteresting film. Given the IMDb ratings, it's the girls that really love this film, which I can understand to some extent, but there are such better caper films out there - even the vapidness of the recent "Ocean's Eleven" outshines the non-event that is "The Italian Job".
***SPOILER***
At the conclusion, take a moment to think about what is going to happen to Norton's character. Are we meant to be cheering the good guys for causing his demise, especially since it would appear to be long and painful? He didn't deserve that, simpering creep that he was.
***END SPOILER***


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


user
The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisché punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy.
The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?
AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks?
I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.


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 did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.
I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss.


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


user
I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.
Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.
Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.
Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.
What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.


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


user
I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?
With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.
And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another cliché gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clichés. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..
One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.
Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes???


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 understand what is hard hitting about this movie! I don't understand why high school kids should watch this! I don't understand why this should have made me think about anything in the slightest!
*Spoiler*
When the un-noticed girl is on her way to commit suicide, was I the only person cheering her on? The cliché'd classical music, long tracking shots, melancholy emotion of the film by that stage had me in reversal to what was intended. I would have only been happy if she walked into the room and the entire cast was in there with her holding scissors to slit their wrists up.
Why?
Cause I went to high school.... and frankly im sick to death of seeing movie after movie in Australia with teenagers in it being solely based on terrible clichés. I've been waiting ages for a younger person to write a movie that im able to relate to and this stereotype driven piece of emo garbage is what I got instead. It was like a dark version of heartbreak high that needed a predictable ending.
Why are all teenagers in Aussie dramas depressed or have really weird problems that just aren't plausibly told?
On the plus side, this was funnier then 'Blurred'. And I needed a good laugh.


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


user
It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.
The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.
Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.
2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".


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


user
I'm sure some people will enjoy it, and find it powerful, or have some sort of personal connection with the characters and story, but from an unbiased stand point, it's not very well done. The film revolves around atypical angst-ridden teenagers, each one playing out a different stereotype making us believe this is what it's like to be a teenager. We get to see a bit of each teenager's lifestyle, but the entire project just came off as pretentious to me, whether it be the constant low angle shots of tree branches in the wind, or the black and white "interviews" with the students, there was nothing new or original showcased in this movie, and nothing I needed to see. Yes, it deals with some strong subject material, and the dramatic scenes are played and acted well, but the entire project seems unnecessary, especially when it seems almost an exact replica to Van Sant's "Elephant" (one dealing with suicide, the other with a school shooting). As I said, some people will probably enjoy this, and the director/writer clearly had some sort of inspiration to make this movie based on the death of a close one, so it's nice the movie was made with some heart in it, but I feel it's incredibly ineffective, and when dealing with material that can be so easily clichéd to do something original with it. I would not recommend 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
The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.
If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.
Don't watch this.


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


user
I truly hate and despise this film and the filmmakers behind it.
Sure, I'm all for making a hard hitting and honest film about youth and youth culture.1987's "River's Edge" is an excellent example of a well-made teen drama. However, what I take exception to is the infantile, grubby and sensationalist approach that the makers of "2:37" took.
A prime example is how it raises so many issues and yet fails in any significant way to comment or reach a resolution on even one of them.
My other major problem with this film, apart from its complete plagiarism of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" (surprised Van Sant didn't sue) is its 'bull loose in a china shop' attitude to quite delicate issues such as incest and particularly suicide.
In short, avoid this film like the plague and anything that this filmmaker ever is involved with subsequently. I've heard that his motivation for making "2:37" may or may not be based on lies. Having seen the substandard result, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is a glorified student film exercise that has no place whatsoever being in a cinema or on DVD. Pure and simple.


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 so copy-cat, cliché-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it.
Here is the range of idiotic clichés, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this "hard hitting" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and "just wants a family".
Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief.
This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with "understanding" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? "Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears.
2:37 is right up there with another Australian "indepedent" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.
AVOID!!!!


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


user
There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.
In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.
Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.
In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.


assistant
0