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've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.


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


user
A film by Almodovar- sends a tingle down my spine every time. The capitalized print which opens the Spanish auteur's latest feature instantly induces memories of salacious nuns, gentle necrophiliacs, wisecracking transsexualsand I haven't even got as far as the infant-terrible's critically reviled early work. And after a beautiful opening montage, with the camera roving across a wind-swept graveyard animated by a hoard of widows feverishly scrubbing tombstones, I thought Pedro had me again under his wicked spell.
Yet once my nostalgia had subsided, there was very little to fill its place. For a director who revels in bringing humanity to assassins and rapists, he does a very poor job at finding any emotional depth or endearing quality in his women. Penelope Cruz is Raimunda, a headstrong housewife whose life is complicated by her daughter's accidental killing of her abusive husband. Thankfully she lives in Almodovar's Spain where your friends will quite happily help to dispose of a corpse for the offer of a round of cocktails. Add to the melting-pot the ghost of Raimunda's mother and a host of other eccentrically warm-hearted matriarchs. "Volver" means literally to return, and Pedro does appear to be recycling old material. The sub-plot of incest feels as though it were tacked-on as the obligatory "taboo". Instead of commenting on or subverting the issue, as with his treatment of paedophilia in Bad Education, it feels forced and unconvincing amid the film's chick-flick sentimentality. I suggest Almodovar call his next film Salir (to move on).


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 first things I noticed that allowed this culture to stand out among the rest was during the wake at Sole's place. An aerial shot is used to show Sole being flowered with kisses by a sea of women. I believed this was a commentary on the closeness that women had for each other of this cultureones who stuck together across the generations, separations and misunderstandings, and still being able to bond and rely on each other. Also, the film seemed to glorify women as almost flawless individuals. What I mean by flawless is that they did not suffer the consequences for their actions and were treated as if they had no imperfections. An example of this is shortly after Paula accidentally killed her father. Her mother immediately comes to her rescue and takes full responsibility for the act while Paula seems to suffer almost no remorse for what she has done. Again, another example of this is when each daughter (or granddaughter) has had an opportunity to reunite with their supposed "dead" mother (grandmother). Knowing the stresses that this has most likely caused in their family, each one of them still embraces the mother without care for what she has donethat is, killing her husband and his lover. In this light, women are portrayed as ones who not only love each other independent of character acts, but also ones who don't seem bothered in the least by the acts in which their friends/family members perform.
Another idea that I thought was intriguing of this culture was in regards to their idea of the supernatural. With the death of Raimunda and Sole's mother and her inexplicable return, the director builds the audience's emotions to believe that this film is going to embody the supernatural. The people depicted in this culture seem very supernatural, that is to say, very eager to believe that life exists beyond the grave. Their aunt, long-time friend Augustina, the prostitute and other people living in the city of La Mancha all believe the rumors of the dead coming back to family members to finish the "unfinished business." I believed this was a mixed reflection of the culture's religious faith (predominantly Catholic) as well as their need to make amends with those who had no chance to be forgiven during mortality. The belief they held in regards to the dead being "alive" was also to give hope to the destitute circumstances they suffered in mortality. When the viewer is exposed to the fact that this film isn't supernatural at all, it's interesting to observe the role the mother continues to play. She's treated as if she still is a ghost (i.e. hiding in small crevices (underneath the bed or inside a car trunk)). I believe the director portrayed the mother this way to heighten the already existent supernatural beliefs the city had adopted. The mother's character seemed to be a metaphor for the city's long-held belief in life after death.


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


user
At least for me. I have been following the career of Mr. Almdovar since the beginning and I was not crazy about this film. I think Penelope Cruz was miscast, the type of woman she is portraying does not look that good, she makes the character unbelievable. Also, the singing scene was just weird. I do not get the point and the lip-sync was awful.
As Spaniard, another thing that drove me nuts are the accents. Why people coming from the same place have such a different accent? The difference between the two sisters is notable and makes no sense. And the village? are we in 2007 or 1950? I found myself trying to explain to my American husband that many of the things in the movie are "old school", things are not like that anymore.
I was expecting more but this time Mr.Almodovar did not deliver, at least for me. I am not saying that Miss Cruz does a bad job, I am saying that she does not belong there, not portraying that character.


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


user
Though I have watched Salò, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this "film" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever!


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


user
"Tart" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: "If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else". Writer/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. "Tart" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.
Unlike the standard Swain film, "Tart" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film.
It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic "Metropolitan" and the camp classic "Cruel Intentions" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. "Tart" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in "Cabaret").
In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in "Tart" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in "Girl" to hulking lumpy-faced in "Pumpkin". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made "Tart"; so go the ravages of time.
Mischa Barton ("Sixth Sense's" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction.


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


user
The beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately "interesting" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the "in crowd" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.
The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.
All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC).
The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.


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


user
Basic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.
Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.
This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.
Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.
Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.
End: Non existent.
Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.
It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.
And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.
By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.
The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.
Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll make up my own mind". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.
I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw this.


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


user
Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).
*******Possible Spoilers********
The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.
I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.
I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.


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


user
The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.
Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.


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


user
Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is!


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


user
I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible.
Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better.
Don't make the same mistake I did.
The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.


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


user
As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with "Tart", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.
It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's "Lawn Dogs" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.
"Tart" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it.


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


user
SPOILERS!
I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)
Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..
Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."
I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol
Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....


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


user
It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the "thief" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) "Less than Zero". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.


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


user
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.


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


user
"Tart" is a pathetic attempt at film making which wanders around and among a bunch of Manhattan teens exploring all the usual teen preppie stuff...sex, drugs, and classical music almost completely without story, focus, or purpose. Griffith is in the film for about 2 minutes while Swain dutifully works her way through another in her long list of dog flicks. Nothing in this films works and Wayne should consider getting a real job. Not recommended for anyone. PU! Ugh! (D)


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 not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: "A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary." Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.
--Shelly


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


user
I wish they would just make a special section in the video rental stores for movies like this. The section would read: "Movies for lonely older men who like to watch young girls being naughty and wearing fetish clothes" I guess dominique swain, after lolita nd now this, is establishing herself as the queen of the dirty old man genre.


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 has recently been televised by Turner Classic Movies. It may have been considered racy in its time, and may have made money, but even the most die-hard Jane Russell fan will find it hard to sit through this dreck.
There are many movie musicals from the 1950s which can withstand the test of time, even though dated by current standards, but which can still be enjoyed because of good music or dancing or an amusing plot. "The French Line", however, fails at all of these aspects.
It doesn't matter that Russell was a fine singer when she is given lousy vocal material. The entire cast is dragged down by a boring, trite plot and dialogue.
It's not even worth recording and skipping through to only the musical numbers--they're crummy.


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


user
Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.
The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything


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


user
The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.


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


user
This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!"


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


user
Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.


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


user
Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.
Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.
With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from 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 was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.


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


user
Don't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.
The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films.


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


user
Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.
Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!


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


user
This movie was terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win/ get nominated for awards oh my god!!


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


user
Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.


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 brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. Really...


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


user
I could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism.


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


user
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).
Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.
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
If you liked William Hickey in "Prizzi's Honor", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in "Mob Boss". This is a very weak "Godfather" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between "Three Stooges" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, "Mob Boss" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK


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


user
Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.


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


user
That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.
Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.


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


user
I recently had to watch this for a project in a Sociology class and thought it was absolutely the worst movie I have ever had to sit through. It was like bad a bad cinemax movie with all the "good bits" taken out. Bad acting, the fake documentary set up, nonsensical plot, and rudderless direction all combine to make a terrible, terrible film.
The female characters are basically only there to be sex objects. Consider this exchange: "He's hot." "He has a girlfriend." "Do you have a girlfriend?" "No." *girl takes boys hand and leads him behind some bushes. boy comes out and sits next to other boy, girl saunters off* "Did you hit that?" "No, I didn't want to take my pants off." "You're stupid." Another girl shows up when the boys are going to Beverly Hills, gets in the trunk with one of the boys, and when they get pulled over by a cop, you see the car bobbing up and down.
A homosexual pervert, a trigger-happy Clint Eastwood look alike, and what seems to be a luchador mask all add to the inanity. One of the boys gets caught by a cop, no one cares. One of the boys gets shot, no one cares.
Someone said the dialogue was mostly improvised, and it shows. Just awful. I would never recommend this film to anyone.


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


user
Look, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.
I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a "meaningful conversation" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film.


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


user
I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates "Oi!" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.
But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are "how kids really are," and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and "Date Movie" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.


assistant
0